Quote:
Jim Pooley "This I agree with.
Drivel. NFL players throw themselves about BECAUSE they arer wearing helmets. The cases in the USA are down to players leading with their heads and attacking the head area in tackles because they are under the misguided impression that their helmets will protect them. As for your quip about cycle helmets, rlhttp://www.helmets.org/stats.htmrl thjey are required by law here and they do save lives!
The second punch was just as damaging as the first. Just because the head didn't "whip back" doesn't mean the impact was any less dangerous or damaging. Have a read..
rlhttp://fineanimalgorilla.com/2012/10/29/what-exactly-happens-when-you-get-punched-in-the-face/rl
you're welcome.....but if you don't believe me, try it for yourself.
You clearly misunderstood with regard to my mentioning the NFL, do you not understand the correlation between wearing 'protective' gear and risk compensation, you've described it perfectly in fact?
THAT was my point as to why so called safety equiment can & does increase injury rates (in cycling, boxing and NFL at the very least) as well as in some instances increasing the injury itself (brain rotation injuries for one) as opposed to when no protective gear is worn.
That backs up my point about headgear not being the answer with regard to concussions.
Thanks for proving my point
Re cycle helmets, where does that say bicycle helmets save lives?? Where is your evidence? That shows number of deaths total, it doesn't compare how many people were cycling before/after. There is so much lacking about that table that the only thing it proves is that more people die on bicycles in the US than do in the UK, Australia, NZ and a fair few of the Western European countries combined.
In the two countries with reliable stats pre & post helemt laws, (Australia & NZ) head injuries and overall number of injuries went UP as a % of cyclists - because the amount of people put off from being forced to cycle with helmets increased significantly more than the drop in absolute number of head injuries and overall number of injuries sustained by cyclists post helmet laws. The only difference was Helmets.
In the Netherlands, Denmark etc it's pretty clear that helmets aren't needed, not just because they have great infrastructure (the leading thing that reduces all injuries just as changing the environment/laws on the rugby field changes things) but because cycling just isn't that dangerous and head injuries are minute compared to other injuries in any case.
If you can't accept that that's down to you, if you want to beleive that helmets protect you much above the test limit of about 14-16mph drop test that's fine by me also. BUT you will find that risk compensation is a factor in cyclists too, extra head circumference, extra weight (5% makes a difference) and the fact that a few mm of polystyrene isn't designed to withstand that much of an impact except low level stuff. But it is no great surprise when you are blinded into thinking they work with all the media and UCI promotion which was all about money and not real facts..you're welcome.
As for the last point, er, no, go ask someone with true experience of what happens with regard to head trauma, the first punch did the most damage, you have your opinion I have mine based on what I've seen, read and spoken to experts about.
If you think that the brain moves more or equal to in the second punch direct to the cheekbone compared to the first you haven't got the feintest idea what you're talking about. The result of knocking out LH with the first punch is evidence enough. In the same situation with LH on the floor with his head against the ground but conscious having not being struck to the head the second punch would not have knocked him out.
You're VERY welcome
.ready(function(){
$('img#like18096952').click(function() {
var xmlhttp = new XMLHttpRequest();
var lpm = $(this).attr('name');
var queryString = )
