No helmet today

BentMikey

Again, why is helmet evidence so controversial and so filled with contradictory studies?

Easy, because any effect of helmets, and helmet laws on safety, are tiny and insignificant compared with useful road safety efforts. Helmets are a safety red herring, and have an overall negative effect on public health.

cjw

BentMikey wrote:

...., and have an overall negative effect on public health.

What rubbish. The BMA, and numerous governments and repsected bodies completely disagree with that statement (otherwise their policy and legislation is actively aimed at harming the population). There is no reputable research that I am aware of that supports your opinion.

BentMikey

I think you've previously seen the posts on how the BMA used to have the opposing stance, and how the latest change was ramrodded through with some decidedly dodgy tactics. Your post is disingenous at best.

cjw

I think you are misrepresenting the change in BMAs stance. They ALWAYS supported helmet wearing but did not support legislation. Their change is stance was to support legislation.

BentMikey

That's correct, there's no misrepresentation on my part.

always_tyred

BentMikey wrote:

I must say, those stats are quite striking, and run counter to what I'd expect. I'll need to do some digging. I also recall seeing that head injuries being the most common cause of death is not correct, but I'll need to find a reference.

If the stuff you guys have recently posted was all true, then why aren't helmets enforced everywhere? The effectiveness of helmets would be far beyond doubt. The Australian and Canadian situations don't show effectiveness of helmets, so there is a conflict here.

Falls off chair.....

(I've explained the Canadian situation for you, by the way)

BentMikey

So you say, but the reality of the situation and expert analysis doesn't fit with your interpretation. Since yours is based on personal opinion and observation, rather than a proper study, it's not particularly credible.

BentMikey

BentMikey wrote:

I must say, those stats are quite striking, and run counter to what I'd expect. I'll need to do some digging. I also recall seeing that head injuries being the most common cause of death is not correct, but I'll need to find a reference.

If the stuff you guys have recently posted was all true, then why aren't helmets enforced everywhere? The effectiveness of helmets would be far beyond doubt. The Australian and Canadian situations don't show effectiveness of helmets, so there is a conflict here.

Right, so having a look at both the helmets.org site, and the linked IIHS site, they both quote the 85% TRT figure, which was discredited. Quoting this study shows that the authors of the site are either incompetent or biased. See critique here:
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Th ... %281989%29

The stats on the IIHS site are also unbelievable, and known to be inaccurate for some years. For example, fatal accidents with unknown helmet status were included in non-helmet wearers, so making the data fatally biased. There's some fairly robust criticism of this data here:
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/12/3/148

Most cyclist deaths in London are caused by being crushed under an HGV. It's pretty stupid to assume that a helmet would make any difference in such an accident, and this also casts serious doubt on the data for Leftpondia, as well as the child injury study posted earlier.

Surf-Matt

So a helmet won't protect you from being crushed under a truck?
Well what about the million and one other possibilities when crashing?

A bit like saying it's pointless for troops to wear flak jackets because it won't protect them from an air to surface missile explosion.

always_tyred

BentMikey wrote:

So you say, but the reality of the situation and expert analysis doesn't fit with your interpretation. Since yours is based on personal opinion and observation, rather than a proper study, it's not particularly credible.

The experts were conducting hindsight analysis with no first hand experience. They made a key assumption that, at the very least is open to challenge. I have proposed what I think is an interesting alternative explanation and I would invite you to seek corroboration.

But fine, believe them without question if you want. I've got a PhD so I could deem myself an expert and write some guff with a couple of my mates and give it a .org designation, if that would help you listen to any pro-helmet arguments?

Right - I'm off to read national enquirer. The professional journalists who work for this esteemed publication appear to have discovered evidence of alien impregnation resulting in the imminent arrival of a bovine-martian hybrid race perfectly adapted to survive off abundant native flora. Its all true becuase its written down and I am keen to learn more and provide myself with an informed opinion as to the possible risks to me.

BentMikey

Surf-Matt wrote:

So a helmet won't protect you from being crushed under a truck?
Well what about the million and one other possibilities when crashing?

A bit like saying it's pointless for troops to wear flak jackets because it won't protect them from an air to surface missile explosion.

The point was that it gives the lie to the previously quoted FARS stats and shows that they are unreliable.

Your more general point is taken care of elsewhere, such as in the population level studies that show the rate of head injuries going up slightly after mandatory helmet laws were introduced. On average, helmets are not a very good safety improvement and are a red herring.

Cunobelin

IN 2003 MP Alan Meals stated in parliament that if compulsion for Helmets were introduced they would save 28,000 children per year from cycling related head injuries.


As there are (on average) only 2,000 cycling related head injuries per year in under 16s this implies that the act of compulsion is going to cause an increase of 26,000 cycling related head injuries per year!


Or oof course that the BHIT and Alan Meale were lying to Parliament!

hamboman

I think the responses people have to this issue are very telling. The largest camp represents those who do wear helmets, and these people seem the most intolerant bunch I've ever heard. Responses range from ridiculous statements of pseudo fact their own (irrelevant) experience to personal attacks.

Why is this behaviour incurred? It's like when you buy a new bike and you really try hard to convince yourself and your better half that you need it! Of course you don't, but you've spent the money and you need to know it wasn't in vain. The thought goes: 'If helmets haven't been providing me any increased safety, or even reducing it, why the hell have I been wearing one all these years? Better dismiss the idea or I'll feel a right prat.'

redddraggon

hamboman wrote:

The largest camp represents those who do wear helmets, and these people seem the most intolerant bunch I've ever heard. Responses range from ridiculous statements of pseudo fact their own (irrelevant) experience to personal attacks.

Have you read my posts on helmets? We're not all like that.

hamboman

Haha, yeah. Not you man, everyone else!

Peyote

redddraggon wrote:

hamboman wrote:

The largest camp represents those who do wear helmets, and these people seem the most intolerant bunch I've ever heard. Responses range from ridiculous statements of pseudo fact their own (irrelevant) experience to personal attacks.

Have you read my posts on helmets? We're not all like that.

Hamboman, have you read any of my posts on helmets? I'd like to think I was in a similar faction as reddraggon.

Maybe this is why these debates never go anywhere, folk get so narked with each other that opinions get pushed to the extreme...

always_tyred

I disagree.

For example - I wear a helmet but I am not terribly interested in a compulsion so to do.

The friction occurs when one tries to enter into a dialogue. One side says something echoing the sentiments above, explains some reasoning, personal or, from about page 10 onwards, on the basis of some statistics, yet the other comes back with statements such as "your opinion means nothing look at the facts" when you have, in fact, been looking at the facts.

I admit, its like trying to convince a Jahovas witness that all 6000 places were booked long ago and that they should be looking on ebay. However, when faced with such zeal, extending to quoting verbatum plainly biased anti-helmet sites one step up from a blog, said sites proclaimed as "unbiased" as compared to "biased" sources such as the BMA, eventually, I confess that I descend into ridicule.

This isn't a debate. At present, you have a load of cr@p data acquired for other purposes, from which analysis of helmet usage effects is tantamount to reading tea leaves, and a small number of indications in approximately equal numbers, that seem to suggest that helmets are (a) good (b) surprisingly ineffective.

Whereas one position says - well, okay it looks like the jury's out - I'll wear a helmet in the mean time
the other position appears to be - well, I'll take the results falling into category (b) and make absurd disclaimers in regard to category (a) and that all of the cr@p data is in fact excellent data supporting their position. It is not even possible, it seems, to convey the very very basic scientific fundament that it is not possible to prove a negative, this demonstrating such a profound misunderstanding of the issue as to drive one to dispair.

I would be able to respect someone saying "well, the jury's out, I don't see the point of wearing a helmet until they are demonstrated as effective".

Perhaps people have been saying this, and its been lost in the foregoing exchanges.
[/i]

Cunobelin

To be fair....................

This is always going to be a debate that suffers from lack of formal data, and that which exists is then excluded by one party or anther. The argument also changes if you look at personal or population level analysis.

Both arguments can be, and are personal.



There are valid points on both sides and the important thing is that you THINKand don't blindly accept propaganda and lies that are being distributed (See Alan Meale and the BHIT above)

Be critical, analyse the data, and make up your own mind on whether you wear a helmet, but don't try and force that decision on others.

secretsam

Belv wrote:

Now i am well aware of the debate and i'm not trying to re-open that. All i am doing is passing on an unusual experience for me that occured during my morning commute:

Due to some inexplicable short-term amnesia, today i didn't wear my helmet for the first time in years. I first noticed about a mile from home when i had a cold head!

Funnily enough, did the same this morning, was wondering why my head was cold...turned around and went back and got the lid, feel naked without it...

Peyote

Always Tyred wrote:

I disagree.

You're allowed to!

Always Tyred wrote:

For example - I wear a helmet but I am not terribly interested in a compulsion so to do.

The pro-choice/pro-compulsion argument isn't what these threads usually degenerate into. The two opposing camps generally fall into "helmets provide more pros than cons" and " helmets provide more cons than pros" camps. It is quite rare that anyone, after sufficient thought and looking into the research available, maintains a pro-compulsion stance.

Always Tyred wrote:

The friction occurs when one tries to enter into a dialogue. One side says something echoing the sentiments above, explains some reasoning, personal or, from about page 10 onwards, on the basis of some statistics, yet the other comes back with statements such as "your opinion means nothing look at the facts" when you have, in fact, been looking at the facts.

I admit, its like trying to convince a Jahovas witness that all 6000 places were booked long ago and that they should be looking on ebay. However, when faced with such zeal, extending to quoting verbatum plainly biased anti-helmet sites one step up from a blog, said sites proclaimed as "unbiased" as compared to "biased" sources such as the BMA, eventually, I confess that I descend into ridicule.

This isn't a debate. At present, you have a load of cr@p data acquired for other purposes, from which analysis of helmet usage effects is tantamount to reading tea leaves, and a small number of indications in approximately equal numbers, that seem to suggest that helmets are (a) good (b) surprisingly ineffective.

Whereas one position says - well, okay it looks like the jury's out - I'll wear a helmet in the mean time
the other position appears to be - well, I'll take the results falling into category (b) and make absurd disclaimers in regard to category (a) and that all of the cr@p data is in fact excellent data supporting their position. It is not even possible, it seems, to convey the very very basic scientific fundament that it is not possible to prove a negative, this demonstrating such a profound misunderstanding of the issue as to drive one to dispair.

I would be able to respect someone saying "well, the jury's out, I don't see the point of wearing a helmet until they are demonstrated as effective".

Perhaps people have been saying this, and its been lost in the foregoing exchanges.
[/i]

Nah, you just getting narked because of Mikeys debating tactics!

Me? I'm keeping out of it, it is quite interesting reading your sparring though, so please do carry on!

andrewc3142

Well, I don't wear a helmet cos I prefer riding without one.

My kids have to wear them since they are still at the stage of doing crazy things and falling off.

Whether others wear helmets or not is of absolutely no concern to me.

The only thing that does bother me in this whole debate is the minority who want them to be compulsory.

hoathy

Yeah, me neither!

always_tyred

Is this the short argument, or have you paid for the full half hour?

cpt_spalding

Belv wrote:

Now i am well aware of the debate and i'm not trying to re-open that.

(14 pages later)

Well that went pretty smoothly then...

robmanic1

Always Tyred wrote:

Is this the short argument, or have you paid for the full half hour?

I've told you once

andrewc3142

That's not an argument, it's just a contradiction.

If I want an argument, I'll start a thread on helmets, thank you.

always_tyred

No, this is "Being hit on the Head" lessons.

Arguments are on the forum next door.

always_tyred

Peyote wrote:

Nah, you just getting narked because of Mikeys debating tactics!

"I confess"

hoathy

Always Tyred wrote:

Peyote wrote:

Nah, you just getting narked because of Mikeys debating tactics!

"I confess"

I don't think anyone in this thread has gotten narky...