Glasses - help or hindrance?
Comments
-
Loving my yellow lenses at the moment. I wear glasses all year round - mainly to keep the wind out of my eyes. My frames don't impare my vision at all - i guess minimal really is best!0
-
The scientific establishment has reversed it's stance on a number of issues through the course of history as evidence outweighs dogma. Usually for the better (Darwin and Coppernicus were derided for while).BentMikey wrote:richardast wrote:I wonder what the real doctors think. The actual practitioners who work in the hospitals putting injured people back together.
Oh. Here it is...
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Cyclsafety++?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,cycle,helmets
I still think it should be a choice not a law though.
You do realise that stance was previously the opposite?
...It's clear other factors do have several orders of magnitude greater effect. One is cycle craft, and the other is the number of other cyclists out on the roads with you.
Cyclecraft is a huge factor in reducing the risk of injury, but it doesn't make you indestructable.
However careful you are, diesel or oil on a poor road surface can be invisible, especially if you're wearing polarized glasses (back on topic you see
). Put said slippery surface on a bend, combine it with clipped-in pedals and road tyres and you may find that you are grateful that the resulting dent is only in your helmet rather than your skull.
I was fortunate to escape these circumstances with just a fractured wrist and a few bruises and grazes.0 -
I could make an ignorant "organ donor" style comment and suggest that you were negligent and irresponsible in not wearing wrist guards when cycling. In reality, the risk of serious head injury and/or broken wrists is very low when cycling, probably not much different when walking.
Interestingly in one study wrist guards were found not to prevent serious injuries, and yet they are fine for preventing minor stuff like road rash. Bit like helmets there, good for minor stuff, and unproven and ineffective on serious injuries.0 -
BentMikey wrote:I could make an ignorant "organ donor" style comment and suggest that you were negligent and irresponsible in not wearing wrist guards when cycling. In reality, the risk of serious head injury and/or broken wrists is very low when cycling, probably not much different when walking.
Interestingly in one study wrist guards were found not to prevent serious injuries, and yet they are fine for preventing minor stuff like road rash. Bit like helmets there, good for minor stuff, and unproven and ineffective on serious injuries.
Simon says, "Dont' wear gloves."
Simon says, "Dont be sanctimonious"0 -
When walking, you have far greater opportunity to regain balance, cushion your fall or hang onto something/someone to avoid your head hitting the tarmac.BentMikey wrote:In reality, the risk of serious head injury and/or broken wrists is very low when cycling, probably not much different when walking.
When cycling you have little chance of regaining balance, no way of cushioning your fall and nothing to hang onto except your bike, which is going down with you.
A fractured wrist I can live with.
A fractured skull, possibly not.
Your arguments continue to be spurious, like the "studies" you regurgitate. In my opinion.0 -
LOL, but the stats per km show that walking is more dangerous than cycling. PACT UK 2002 shows 48 KSIs per passenger km when walking, and only 33 when cycling. Car use, on the other hand, has only 3. Look at it per hour of activity, and walking and cycling swap round, so they are roughly comparable.
I'm sure you don't realise that your helmet is only capable of absorbing 75-100j, whilst it'll take 1000j to fracture the average skull, ten times as much. Secondly, your argument that you have nothing to cushion your fall from a bike is given the lie by your broken wrist. That's almost certainly what stopped your head from taking a more serious impact.
Whilst you might not agree with me, my arguments are rather more detailed and considered than you give me credit for.0 -
It's not just about the amount of energy that the helmet absorbs.
The energy that is applied to the wearers head in the collision is spread over the contact area between head and helmet rather than being concentrated in one small area like it would be if the naked head hit the concrete.
Your arguments are detailed. So is Alice In Wonderland. It doesn't make it true.0 -
It's not my arguments that are the dogma. It's your assertions that are not borne out. Why don't head injury rates get reduced by helmet wearing over a large population?
You do seem to be heading towards the usual pro-helmeteer trap of resorting to emotive arguments and ridicule. If you're going to carry on in this vein, I'm not going to bother debating further with you.0 -
With you all the way on glasses (Oakley Straight Jacket - pricey but excellent) and a decent cap with a peak (Rapha - ditto and ditto), though.0
-
BentMikey wrote:It's not my arguments that are the dogma. It's your assertions that are not borne out. Why don't head injury rates get reduced by helmet wearing over a large population?
You do seem to be heading towards the usual pro-helmeteer trap of resorting to emotive arguments and ridicule. If you're going to carry on in this vein, I'm not going to bother debating further with you.
Mate, its you that is drawing the ridicule in the manner of your debate. Every time someone has the temerity to be colloquial, you come back with some pompous remark relating to the way they argue. Get over yourself, Jesus.
Do you know, off the top of your head what "impulse" is as opposed to "force"? Do you you, off the top of your head know what damage the brain can either sustain or withstand from being shaken around inside the skull? I mean, isn't it absurd to be parroting figures relating to skull FRACTURE? Christ - if it gets to that point, you are in big trouble.
In general, and I think what you have no feel for, becuase you are "self taught" is that medical "studies" are very often statistical analyses of results that were not collected with a particular analysis in mind. As such, a great many of them are just so much tosh and the threshold that must be met to qualify for a publication is sadly low.
So, as an earlier correspondent pointed out, what would an ER doctor think of the studies? Setting aside that many of the arguments against helmet use are taken from motorist surveys rather than fact, I'll agree that the opinion of someone who only sees the bad results isn't objective. However, there is a kernel of truth there - data is fantastically low resolution; did the cyclist hurt their head or not. Was it fatal or not. No shades of grey, primarily becase its simply not worth anyone's effort to gather that information as a matter of routine.
Therefore, what you rely on are hightsight analyses of low resolution data to look for a small effect, data that do not include non-reported incidents. So whereas you argue that helmets have an effect for certain incidents, you cite data that does not, by design, include those incidents.
Another example - how do you account for traffic levels? We'll all agree that in the last 20 years things have got much much worse for us as cyclists. The only compensation for road level usage avaiable for such hindsight analyses is a linear correlation between traffic levels and number of cycling accidents. What's that based on? Scientists don't have some magic way of sorting things like this, you know. So, the chances are, they guessed. Linear will do.
In terms of the way you debate, a number of people have exaplained situations in which a helmet did them good. Isn't it disrespectful and ignorant (your favourite word) to ignore that person's experience because it doesn't agree with your opinion, and quote something along the lines of "as an average of the population as a whole....yawn"?
I gave you three examples of the way my cycling, particularly when less experienced, benefitted from a helmet. Thus, I feel that the way I cycle, or have cycled (perhaps I cycle in high risk conditions, I don't know.... certainly the Sea to Sky Highway was a pretty dangerous place to be...) merits helmet use. In response, you quote a bunch of statistics about some other people. Jesus - stop doing that, its plain annoying. Maybe you are right that the bloke pootling to the shops on quiet roads doesn't need a helmet. There are more of him than of me. But I need a helmet, because I share the road with cars when all average speeds are higher. so I wear a helmet.
The point, way back when, was that I don't think its responsible, during a conversation about an unrelated issue, to take the opportunity to "educate" someone just getting into cycling not to wear a helmet.
That's just a bit evangelical, isn't it?
And yes, I've taken that up and run with it, mainly becuase you annoyed me. Its arrogant to lob that sort of comment in and you've been arrogant thereafter.
It isn't, just so you know, clever to quote statistics. I bet you have a hard drive full of them. If you want, you can quote reams of statistics in support of the fact that global warming doesn't exist, and still further that it has nothing to do with man. You can then quote a whole lot more that it does exist and its directly related to our activities.
What you are doing, frankly, is sitting in one camp or the other and quoting those statistics that now suit you. No one doubts that youve put time and effort into reading up on this, but just like the respective atmospheric scientists, human nature dictates that you come to a judgement quite early and then substantiate that judgement thereafter. Its the most tricky part of science to deal with. And those are trained scientists. You aren't.
Personally, I figure that atmospheric science isn't my discipline, so I haven't got a clue who to belive. I sit back and wait for a consensus and, perhaps out of uninformed guilt, I recycle and turn the lights off and don't leave things on standby. And what do you know, a consensus is emerging.
I do the same with helmets. In the mean time, because they seem to work for me (because of my road craft, as you in your not in the least arrogant way, would say) so I wear them. I think I share that in common with a lot of other cyclists and I'd thank you not to sit on some imaginary "I know better than you" pedestal and pooh pooh this position.
I think we should end this thread. You should go off and advise other beginner cyclists not to use cycling lanes, or something else empathic like that.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:I think we should end this thread. You should go off and advise other beginner cyclists not to use cycling lanes, or something else empathic like that.
Yes, I agree. I'm sorry you make such negative assumptions of my intentions, and that as a result you can't debate without getting so upset. I guess I'm sorry that the evidence I'm showing you is so distasteful to you. I do remember how it felt when I used to be a pro-helmet person and was forced to change my opinion, so I have lots of sympathy.
I take it your last sentence is sarcastic? In which case it's also misinformed. Cycle lanes are another problem issue, because like helmets they promise safety, but deliver danger in unexpected ways.
And no, that's not meant as anything to wind you up, but instead to show that like you I'm concerned about what happens to other cyclists, and how to make cycling better for all of us.0 -
I don't recall ever claiming to have any kind of expertise.
Like the other fella' it irks me when non-experts push unproven theories like they are absolute scientific fact. Some people might blindly believe it.
It is a fact that the British Medical Association have published a policy urging legislation to make helmet wearing compulsory. They have cited research that shows injury rates being reduced by helmet wearing (they're in the link that I posted previously).
Personally, I disagree with that stance. I think it should be about personal choice.
My choice is to wear a helmet.
My choice is informed by advice from the vast majority of the medical profession, the cycle industry and personal experience rather than fringe studies that I have handpicked that tell me what I want to hear.0 -
In that page the BMA have also crucially left out the studies that are sceptical of helmet benefits, as well as including pro-helmet studies that have been criticised severely. That looks like cherry picking evidence to support a bias to me. And you still ignore the fact that until recently the BMA was against compulsory helmet wearing, and that the change in stance was by no means a unanimous one.
It seems your claim of "fringe studies" is far from the truth. Take a look at the lists of helmet studies on cyclehelmets.org, and there are lots of studies that are sceptical, not just a few. They tend to be more rigorous than the ones claiming big benefits from helmets too.0 -
You are allowed to change your mind if you think you were wrong. It shows maturity.BentMikey wrote:And you still ignore the fact that until recently the BMA was against compulsory helmet wearing, and that the change in stance was by no means a unanimous one.
Do you know the actual figures of the non-unanimous decision? It would be interesting to see.
They didn't just decide to support the wearing of helmets. They actually took a stance to apply pressure for legislation making it compulsory. That sounds like they were perhaps quite convinced.
I'm still pro-choice though. Did I mention that?
Edited to correct quote tage mistake.0 -
If people want to wear them, that seems fine to me. If they don't, that's also fine. I don't wear one on-road and don't seek to convince anyone to my point of view, same as I don't especially welcome complete strangers coming up and offering unsolicited advice as to why I should be wearing one.
There probably is some kind of protection in some circumstances, although I would guess less than some people believe, and they are definitely a fashion thing in the UK. However, I find helmets are hot, sweaty, uncomfortable, restrictive and (clinching argument, this) however much I try I can't fold one up and pop it in the back pocket of my jersey.0 -
LOL Andrew, you need one of those folding helmets that were being advertised recently! I saw one at Cycleshow, I somehow doubt it would quite fit in a jersey pocket though. Here's a wiggle link:
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDetail.a ... 5360033048
Richard, yes, you're right on the claiming expertise, my apologies. One thing though, you ascribe maturity to the BMA for changing their stance, but don't seem willing to credit me with the same attribute. You also didn't address why the BMA show only prohelmet studies and none of the sceptical ones. Have you looked at the lists of the bigger studies on each side of the debate on cyclehelmets.org? I think it shows just how badly biased that BMA page is.
You might be pro-choice, but encouraging people to wear helmets, even by example, is a bad thing. It promotes the myth that cycling is dangerous, and thus reduces the number of people out there cycling. That on it's own means that cycling becomes ever so slightly more dangerous for the rest of us still out on the roads, and will have a far bigger effect on deaths and injuries. It has a further worse effect too, in that all those people that no longer cycle will lose the health benefits of cycling, which again will be far worse than the best possible effect of helmets.0 -
Most of the cycle manufacturers are corporate giants whose only interest is making money.BentMikey wrote:You might be pro-choice, but encouraging people to wear helmets, even by example, is a bad thing. It promotes the myth that cycling is dangerous, and thus reduces the number of people out there cycling.
If cycle helmets put people off cycling, then why do all there advertisements show people wearing them? If it damaged their profits they wouldn't do it.0 -
richardast wrote:
Most of the cycle manufacturers are corporate giants whose only interest is making money.BentMikey wrote:You might be pro-choice, but encouraging people to wear helmets, even by example, is a bad thing. It promotes the myth that cycling is dangerous, and thus reduces the number of people out there cycling.
If cycle helmets put people off cycling, then why do all there advertisements show people wearing them? If it damaged their profits they wouldn't do it.
I think that we are now getting to the nub of it. Not only is the BMA "biased" but bicyclehelmets.org is not? I'd love to know what motivation the BMA might have for this bias. Shares in Giro perhaps? Could it possibly be, Mikey, just ever so slightly possibly, that the large number of highly qualified individuals are making some judgement as to the quality of the science contained within any given study?
I'm going to pick apart the British Columbia commentary on your "objective" site, just to demonstrate to you that it is flawed.
"The law resulted in no improvement in % head injuries from a year before legislation (95/96) to a year after (97/98) compared with Canadian provinces that did not introduce a helmet law. It seems likely, therefore, that on-going trends rather than the helmet law was responsible for the changes over time."
The conclusion does not follow the statement. I was living there over that period and for a couple of years before the law was going to come in, there was a lot of publicity and cycle helmets were subsidised by the BC government. Indeed, when I arrived, I thought helmets WERE compulsory. The police in Vancouver were annoyingly assiduous at enforcing the law in the months immediately following its inception. Thus, quite understandably, the greatest jump in helmet uptake took place BEFORE the law came into force. Thus, in following the author's reasoning, this additional piece of information would change the conclusion on its head.
"Controlled surveys of cycle use before and after the law were not carried out. However a survey to measure helmet use in 1999 suggested that the cyclist profile had changed, with around 30% fewer cyclists aged 16 to 30 years, a similar reduction in road cycles and a smaller reduction in the proportion of females cycling. [1]
The fall of 35% in all cyclist injuries from 1995 to 1997 (see above) was most likely a combination of general road safety benefits and falling cycle use. Pedestrian injuries fell by 7% over the same period. [4] It is therefore possible that cycle use fell by around 28% due to the helmet law."
This is simply fiction dressed up as analysis. The authors equate a 7% pedestrian injury drop with a 35% cycling injury drop. Why? There's a 400% difference, how is that a correlation? It is therefore possible that cycle use fell by around 28%? Well its possible and that figure would be required in order to validate the analysis. But where is the indication? The cycling profile study doesn't say anything about the total cyclist numbers, however the authors pick out a 30% figure from one subsection to apply to the whole. That's shockingly poor science, equating a single grape with the whole bunch.
Oh, and road cyles fell by a similar %. The statement is unclear. Does it mean that cycling on roads fell by a similar %, or does it mean that sales of road cycles fell by a similar %. Given that the alternative is a mountain bike, and given that cycling in Canada is not as much as a form of transport (its essentially the same car culture as the US), but a form of excersise, one might expect the two figures to be somewhat related in any case. I feel sure that mountain biking is getting more popular and road cycling less popular pretty much unversally across the world.
So the correct question to ask would be how cycling as a whole changed. I, like you are concerned not to put people off cycling. So here is an opportunity to see if, not withstanding changing fashions (road vs. mtb) cycling sales went up or down over the same period. IF it went up, where do the author's arguments go?
Interestingly, the demographic of Vancouver was undergoing a seizmic change at the time, following the handover of Hong Kong from the UK to China. House prices had gone up several hudred percent already. The population itself had risen by about 15% (I think) almost entirely fueled by immigration. And I also strongly suspect that the changes in the population by age group would not be uniform. Thus, what was the change in the population of the 16-30 age group? Families were coming over and I wonder if therefore that the bell curve of immigrant numbers vs. age would be centred on, for example, the 16-45 age group? If so, those numbers would have to change by rather more than 15% in order for this to be the average change.
I'm just guessing, but my guess would be that cycling in Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated islands on earth, would be at a very much lower rate than cycling amongst the previously resident Canadian population.
(I alsways add a PC brigade disclaimer - this is not a comment on immigration in the News of the World sense - simply a factual statement of what was happening there at the time)
Finally, there is a table of helmet uptake %'s for various segments of the population. Where is the accompanying analysis of those changes against corresponding accident statistics? Would that analysis be inconvenient for the authors' conclusions?
I'm sorry, but this "science" is dreadful. I'd warrant that a substantial number of the analysies of statistics from elsewhere in the world could be similarly picked apart from locals who have more information at their disposal than the authors.
I am flabbergasted that anyone reading this website could come to any other conclusion than that it is biased and self serviing. Its pseudo science on a par (okay, almost on a par) with alternative therapies and as a serious physical scientist I don't know if I should laugh or cry or send a shitty e-mail to the various luminaries, half of which I'm more qualified than, telling them that they should be ashamed of themselves.0 -
Obviously a lot of passion around this subject (helmets not glasses) - not entirely sure that I understand why so much!
I've opened another thread so that those who wish to can continue - leaving this thread for those who want to talk/learn/spout about the relative merits of wearing cycling GLASSES.0 -
THe BMA allowed a massive and generous 5 (yes a whole 5 minutes) to this debate and then timed it so that the emotive statements would leave no time for the science, in addition the little evidence given was the discredited and flawed data from the BHIT who included ALL child head injuries, not just cyclists intheir figures.
Superbly avoided any reasonable debate and then had the only "show of hands" ballot inthe conference.
An appalling stage managed and cynical manipulation of the debate and vote - one wonders why a fair and open debate was discouraged - or were they afraid the reslt would not be the way they wanted.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
I rode to college last week having left my glasses at home - I really really missed them that morning. A few chunks of road muck hit my face came very close to my eyes - too close for comfort!
As for helmets - I now wear one most of the time. Especially when going to college through Slough in the rush hour when contact with a car is quite likely! I think that a bare head against car bodywork could be messy but with a lid spreading the contact area between head and car I should come off better than the car! Its quite comfy, not too sweaty but it is a pain to fit in my locker! Not had a chance to go off road recently
but will be wearing one when I do get out and about again - if it does nothing at all then so be it, but if I get knocked off by a walker (or car) then I can at least claim to have done everything right!
One fine day in the middle of the night, two dead men got up to fight. Back to back they faced each other, drew their swords and shot each other.0 -
I agree that glasses are essential protection when out cycling however I don't wear them at night when it is raining simply because every time a car came my way whilst it was raining in the pitch black roads with their lights not dimmed I got totally blinded. Couldn't see a thing. That was far more dangerous than not having them on but only in those circumstances. I tried every tint of lens I had - transparent, blue, orange, yellow & smoke. They were all useless.
So what do you wear if you can get away with wearing them in the same circumstances?0 -
I agree - the dark, rain and oncoming traffic headlights are a dangerous combination. At this point I decide that the benefit of wearing glasses is outweighed by the risk - and take them off.0
-
Richardast, sorry, but your post doesn't make sense to me.
Here's a good page on the case against bicycle helmets and legislation:
http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/campaigns/velo.htm
Well posted Cunobelin, that's quite a good refute of the pro-BMA stance. I like how Richard and co simply ignore that.0 -
There's another one from the Scottish Parliament cross-party cycling group which similarly slates helmets and helmet legislation. Anyone have a valid link as mine seems broken?0
-
Good morning.
Sorry Loggerhead, we appear to be rehijacking the thread. :oops:
Mikey, my post wasn't intended to be confusing. I'll break it down.
Cycle manufacturers (Giant, Specialized, Trek, etc) are huge corporate monsters. Their primary purpose is making profits. Profits matter to them more than the spirit of cycling.
Their senior executives control the companies marketing policies and they are advised by highly skilled and experienced marketing folk. They know what they are doing.
Yes, these companies make cycling helmets, but they also make bikes, accessories, components and clothing.
Virtually every advert you see in a magazine or on a website shows the rider wearing a helmet.
Why on earth would these people use a marketing tactic that made the general public think that cycling is dangerous? If that were the case then it would make fewer people want to cycle and it would harm their sales of bikes, accessories, components and clothing.
My suggestion is that evidence from the marketplace is better evidence of what the general public think than the theories of university lecturers.
I'm not ignoring Cunobelin's post, by the way. In one of the other helmet threads :roll: I expressed an interest in reading a report of the BMA debate he referred to because I can't find a transcript anywhere. I'm waiting to see it for myself before passing comment.
Either way, as I've mentioned once or twice, or more, I don't care whether other people wear helmets or not. I'm pro-choice. I just like to argue with self-appointed experts who try to convince poeple looking for advice that their way is the only way. I think that they should make their own minds up.0 -
Why would you call me a self-appointed expert? For that matter IIRC you and the other chap called me arrogant too, stuff like that is a *really* good way to convince people of the validity of your points. My perception of that is that's frustration, taking the debate personally, and that you don't like the bad points of helmets being talked about. There's not much point in hanging out on forums if you can't debate unemotionally.
Back to your manufacturer point, I see what you mean. I have a slightly different take on this, in that the companies have no choice with helmets and other gear as they have a lot of social pressure on them to "be responsible" due to the FUD surrounding the helmet debate. Perhaps they want to promote the sort of cycling where people buy expensive bikes and gear, and helmets, and not the sort of bikes you see commonly in the Netherlands where very few people wear helmets.
You don't get much helmet promotion in the Netherlands because why would anyone there want a helmet for something that's no more dangerous than walking anywhere?0 -
BentMikey wrote:My perception of that is that's frustration, taking the debate personally, and that you don't like the bad points of helmets being talked about. There's not much point in hanging out on forums if you can't debate unemotionally.
No great emotion here and I don't take the remarks personally. As previously mentioned, I don't actually care whether people wear a helmet or not. I just don't like it when oblique studies are quoted as though they are proven scientific fact.Richardast wrote:I don't care whether other people wear helmets or not. I'm pro-choice. I just like to argue with self-appointed experts who try to convince poeple looking for advice that their way is the only way. I think that they should make their own minds up.
The facts that exist don't really prove anything. We just make our best guess on the information to hand.
And just for the record, I don't think your recollection is correct. I don't recall having called you arrogant. The self-appointed expert bit is, I would have thought, self-explanatory.0 -
If there's one thing i've taken from this whole thread - it's the tip about using soap (any soap) smeared litely on the INSIDE of your glassses - stops the glasses fogging up! Possibly more valuable than the whole helmet debate (IMHO)
Keep finning!0 -
BentMikey wrote:Why would you call me a self-appointed expert?
Er... hello? Earth to Mikey?0
