Benefits of wearinga helmet poll
Comments
-
Always Tyred wrote:I don't understand.
Is the thudguard something to stop toddlers from braining themselves on furniture, or something?
If you are referring more generally to safety measures for non-cycling activities, I think you may have to go to a non-cycling forum.
Myself, I cycle, I row. When I do anything else I tend to take advice as to appropriate safety gear. But since I'm not into anything else in a big way, I'm not in an informed position.
You are right. Cycling is not the most dangerous thing I can imagine doing. But it is what I do a lot of.
Why not discuss helmets off bike?
You do spend tome off your bike I presume?
I know it is inconvenient that there is no rational reason for accepting cycle helmets, and denying the same safety when off the bike- but of course it is easier to dismiss it rather than discuss it.
The Thudguard is simply a safety device that has the same validity ,advantages and justifications as a cycle helmet with the same potential outcomes. Now howzabout exolaining why you don't accept it as a valid safety device for children?
Of course that will be too much to expect... simple dismissal avoids the uncomfortable facts
.<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 -
Cunobelin wrote:Secondly if you actually read the post, the statement is that 99% of the time you are protected is optimistic, this is a fact you have dismissed as "bollocks"and then totally failed to support.
If helmets protected "99% of the time"* then Australian deaths from cycling head injuries would be virtually zero. In fact, relative to the number of people cycling post-helmet law, they're unchanged. Which is even more alarming when you consider that the people who still cycle (there was a BIG fall) are more likely to be hardcore cyclists with better skills; for the same person cycling before an after the law the chances of death have probably increased. See eg http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/722-a
*Unless Bio meant "99% of the time people wearing helmets don't die of falling off a bicycle.".Which is true for the helmeted and the naked, and I think we can assume that even Bio knows that.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:I don't understand.
Is the thudguard something to stop toddlers from braining themselves on furniture, or something?
It's pretty simple: a sub-12mph head injury is much likely from falling down the stairs than as a consequence of cycling, from a jogger slipping, from an old person slipping while getting out of bed, or from someone stumbling coming back from the pub. These people would get more benefit helmets than cyclists. So why target cyclists for helmeting rather than old people, joggers, and anyone having a drink?
One dark thought is that although it is empirically proven that helmets don't reduce the percentage rate of serious injuries, they *do* reduce the numbers of cyclists. This makes quite a few powerful road using lobbies very happy. Before you dismiss this, consider that in California cyclists have to wear helmets, but don't have to have a rear light. And virtually anything goes at the front. Would you rather be invisible to overtaking SUVs in the dark and wearing a helmet, or helmet-less but seen?0 -
I hate to break the news to Meanwhile, but it has been known, on a number of occasions, for
expert witnesses to appear for both sides of a legal case.
I know, stunning isn't it?
Who would have thought that a couple of grand a day would in any way influence learned professors to emphasise one argument over the other. Hell, who would imagine that a lawyer might ask such questions as necessary to emphasise one argument over another.
I know! I always thought that "science" gave "the answer" but apparently not.0 -
Erm.... struggling with this one.... This is a cycling forum, right? So, in answer to your question "why cyclists" I'd draw your attention to the subject matter of the forum. Its hardly an exclusive debate directed at cyclists. Well, debating the merits of cycle helmets is, I suppose.Cunobelin wrote:Always Tyred wrote:I don't understand.
Is the thudguard something to stop toddlers from braining themselves on furniture, or something?
If you are referring more generally to safety measures for non-cycling activities, I think you may have to go to a non-cycling forum.
Myself, I cycle, I row. When I do anything else I tend to take advice as to appropriate safety gear. But since I'm not into anything else in a big way, I'm not in an informed position.
You are right. Cycling is not the most dangerous thing I can imagine doing. But it is what I do a lot of.
Why not discuss helmets off bike?
You do spend tome off your bike I presume?
I know it is inconvenient that there is no rational reason for accepting cycle helmets, and denying the same safety when off the bike- but of course it is easier to dismiss it rather than discuss it.
The Thudguard is simply a safety device that has the same validity ,advantages and justifications as a cycle helmet with the same potential outcomes. Now howzabout exolaining why you don't accept it as a valid safety device for children?
Of course that will be too much to expect... simple dismissal avoids the uncomfortable facts
.
Would you like to have a debate about helmets for snow sports? This seems more common. Lets go - whole new thread.
What about rock climbing?
I think we should also have a thread for helmet use and horse riding. Its not law and I occasionally see people without them.
I also think we should have a poll to find out how many people have spontaneously fallen over whilst jogging. Oh, no, wait, that's completely irrelevant. Pardon me. Its irrelevant because when I'm toddling along on my bike all alone, I tend not to fall off. When I'm sharing the roads with other vehicles, its a bit more likely.
Thus, I feel that wearing a helmet when jogging on busy roads (particularly considering the difficulties posed by roundabouts) is advisable.
I would also like to hear the death and head injury rates for non helmet wearing children. Learning to walk at 1-2mph and from a height of 2ft just has to be more dangerous than 18mph on the A70 in rush hour.0 -
There is very little information about the prevalence and cause of head injuries in children
One of th better papers is
Prevalence of traumatic brain injury amongst children admitted to hospital in one health district: a population-based study by Carol A. Hawley Anthony B. Ward, Julie Long, David W. Owen and Andrew R. Magnay published in "Injury " (2003)
These figures are not unexpected as cycle accidents are not signficant in under 2s for instance!
In 5 - 9year olds though the top causes are
Falls - 210 (44.2%)
Fall from bicycle -50 (10.5%)
Pedestrian RTA - 63 (13.3%)
Struck by object - 50 (12.4%)
Cyclist RTA is way down with 22 (4.6%)
In 10 - 15 year olds, this changes slightly
Falls - 142 (28.2%)
Pedestrian RTA - 101 (20%)
Struck by object 58 (11.5%)
Assault 40 (7.9%)
Fall from bicycle 32 (6.3%)
Cyclist RTA 31 (6,2%)
Again the question must arise - we expect these children to wear helmets on their bikes, but not during the activities that are causing the most common hospital admissions?
But back to the reply - helmets are not exclusive to cyclists, nor are the shortcomings disadvantages, advantages or protection. BY excluding these other sports and looking at the effect of helmets we miss a lot of data and information that can be useful.
It may be a cycling forum, but to exclude any relevant information is nave and head in the sand.
Pedestrians are slap bang in the operating parameters for cycle helmets, experience the causes that are most likely to be alleviated from cycle helmet use and offer a large data source. We (and the scientific debate) could only benefit from pedestruian helmet use.<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'm not going to comment on the thudguard until either a) you offer all the data on child hitting it's head on a table corner at up to 12mph or b) you wear one on a bicycle. It's a red herring, it's got nothing to do with bikes and whether I think it's a good idea or otherwise has no place on this forum.
But by all means, they'd like your input here.
Sorry about the bollocks thing, you're right, it's no way to argue.
It's just occurred to me - perhaps the fact I'm bald means that I've never had helmet hair issues and that THIS is the single biggest issue for people like meanwhile and cunobelin.0 -
Do 5-9 year olds spend more, or less, than 10.5% of their time on a bike?
Look, I get your point about cycling not being the only activity meriting a helmet, but I really think you are going up a bit of a blind alley. So, yes, congratulations, you have correctly identified general road safety as a valid debating point. Please god go to the Soapbox to debate it.
The focus on cycling helmets is because, for me and many other cyclists, cycling is one of the most dangerous things I do on a regular basis. I drive, so that's probably more dangerous. I row, alone without a life jacket (you can't wear one and row) which is also arguably more dangerous. And I cycle, a lot, about 95% of it on road.
With the exception of rowing, where there isn't much that engineering can do for me, I take all relevant and reasonable precautions.
The decisions I take regarding the activities I do are not influenced by the relative danger of activities that I do not do, because that would make me a moron.
I make the decisions based on a balance between practicality and benefit. Since a helmet is a benefit (albeit of debatable magnitude) and for me offers essentially NO disadvantage, I wear one. I probably wouldn't wear a motorcycle helmet. I don't wear knee and elbow pads or full cycling leathers.
Nor do I put my head in a bucket of sand, even though this might be an effective energy absorbing medium.
(PS: I think that there is a thread out there where there are pedestrian statistics compared to cycling statistics. These pedestrian stats include all incidents while a pedestrian, including muggings, having black cats cross your path, walking under ladders, etc. and even so, per hour spent as a pedestrian, cycling is about 3 (or was it 4 - someone will have to look it up) times more hazardous. Were it hypothetically possible to strip out statistics for people walking along and across roads, I think you would find the ratio even higher.
But, stop press news! Motorcycling was much more dangerous than cycling.)0 -
Always Tyred wrote:I hate to break the news to Meanwhile, but it has been known, on a number of occasions, for
expert witnesses to appear for both sides of a legal case.
I know, stunning isn't it?
Yes. That's why it impressed me that I couldn't find an expert witness willing to back up the belief that most people here - what 78%? - that a bike helmet will offer meaningful protection in a serious accident. Indeed, if you had bothered reading the linked material, I think you would have found it stated that in one of the court cases involved this was explicitly the case - the insurance company involved couldn't find a neurologist willing to testify that a helmet would be likely to have offered meaningful protection.
There's a big difference between "expert witnesses can be" found "and I found an expert witness." Although it seems to have eluded you.Who would have thought that a couple of grand a day would in any way influence learned professors to emphasise one argument over the other.
In the example above an insurance company with enormous resources and a huge settlement at stake couldn't find a single neurologist willing to testify"for" helmet in court, where they would have to face cross examination and damage to their professional reputations if they showed bias. The more that you insist that expert testimony can be bought, the more striking its lack is.
Once again, "facts" from inside one's own head are much less useful than the real facts that come from outside. Of course, the from-head-facts (ala "prejudices") don't take any work to obtain and generally support ones own emotional inclinations, and for some people these will always be compelling attractions.I know! I always thought that "science" gave "the answer" but apparently not.
As science in this case seems to disagree with you (e.g. the UK's main scientific tester of helmets is the guy I've quoted over and over again) I can understand why you feel this way. Maybe if you buy science flowers it will be nicer to you?0 -
The focus on cycling helmets is because, for me and many other cyclists, cycling is one of the most dangerous things I do on a regular basis. I drive, so that's probably more dangerous.
Which is the whole point - it isn't..... more 65 year old male pedestrians will suffer head injuries this year than cyclists of all ages!
Wardlaw in the BMJ points out that 6 times as many pedestrians are killed in RTAs than cyclists yet the difference in distance travelled is only five times making walking more dangerous in these circumstances than cycling.
In the stats above, there are several activities that caused greater numbers of head injuries than cycling. In none of the research (Thornhill et al is typical ) where admissions form the cohort has cycling been in the top causes.
The perception that cycling is so dangerous we need to wear protective equipment is negative, and has a detrimental effect on "recruitment"
However having just quoted Wardlaw - you have to be careful with "correcting" for time, mileage or the likes. Of course you can choose one that suits your agenda. Time spent cycling is not equivalent exposure as the distance travelled.
There is a lovely "road safety site" which proved that cyclist kill more people per year than "white van man".
The argument was that if we take the number of deaths over the last few years and correct for the mileage then the number of "deaths per mile" is some three to 4 times greater for cyclists than white vans....... conclusive proof that cyclists are a far greater problem than white vans
The facts are that more pedestrians, car drivers and passengers are admited each year with head injuries than cyclists. If helmets do play a part then more of these would be prevented by the pedestrians and car drivers wearing helmets...
If we are really interested in head injury prevention, then this is where we should be heading.<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 -
Always Tyred wrote:
Look, I get your point about cycling not being the only activity meriting a helmet, but I really think you are going up a bit of a blind alley.
Because you say so. Sure. Sounds reasonable to me.The focus on cycling helmets is because, for me and many other cyclists, cycling is one of the most dangerous things I do on a regular basis. I drive, so that's probably more dangerous. I row, alone without a life jacket (you can't wear one and row) which is also arguably more dangerous. And I cycle, a lot, about 95% of it on road.
With the exception of rowing, where there isn't much that engineering can do for me, I take all relevant and reasonable precautions.
If you are saying that the safety measures that you take while cycling are and should consistent with safety measures you take while performing other activities...
Firstly, you have now hit the reason for comparing cycling to other activities. Consistency is reasonable. That you understand this and carp against someone else for suggesting it as a principle is strange, but what the hey.
Secondly, you are ASSUMING that you're being consistent. Like most people who argue on the basis of assumptions (and why? you've obviously got a net connection handy - are five minutes research before posting too much to ask?) you're wrong. Driving is considerably more dangerous to you than cycling - a typical driver has a 1/80 chance of being killed in his lifetime, while an active cyclist has a 1/142 chance of dying on his bike. The car is more dangerous, and while the mortality benefits of bike helmets are extremely questionable, the safety benefits of a rally style harness and helmet while driving are not. If you actually followed the principles you claim to, you'd helmet up for driving as well as, or instead of, for cycling.
Now, if helmets for cycling that really worked were available - instead of ineffective foam daubs - that would be another thing.0 -
Its pretty simple, really - I don't consider walking particularly dangerous. Sure'y you aren't suggesting that those figures are pro-rata in any way?
Interesting that you say that they couldn't find a neurologist willing to say that a helmet would "offer meaningfull protection in a serious accident".
Is the definition of "serious" in that court case the same as the definition of "serious" in this low-resolution poll? I'd consider "serious" to be falling, getting road rash, maybe breaking a bone and banging my head. you know - the sort of thing you might get from being doored, left hooked, run into a gutter or verge and which feels pretty serious when it happens to you.
You see, there's a pretty high risk that you are quoting out of context and I think you'd have to get a really good understanding of the case in question to be able to gauge for yourself if the scientist's position was consistent with one, or both sides of the present debate. I am not going to read the transpcript of the case, but knock yourself out.
I would also be really interested to know if the same consultant feels that their present line of work is an entirely fruitless exercise, or if elsewhere he or she advocates helmet use.
With respect - this debate has run its course on numerous occasions and I can safely say that no one thinks that cycle helmets are a great deal of use in a very serious RTA.0 -
meanwhile wrote:Always Tyred wrote:
Look, I get your point about cycling not being the only activity meriting a helmet, but I really think you are going up a bit of a blind alley.
Because you say so. Sure. Sounds reasonable to me.
Are you kidding? The thread was descending into a debate about toddlers wearing protective headgear? Jesus - I mean its funny but its surely not helpful to compare stats for cycling and toddling?
It makes about as much sense as "the Chewbacca defense".If you are saying that the safety measures that you take while cycling are and should consistent with safety measures you take while performing other activities...
Driving is considerably more dangerous to you than cycling - a typical driver has a 1/80 chance of being killed in his lifetime, while an active cyclist has a 1/142 chance of dying on his bike. The car is more dangerous, and while the mortality benefits of bike helmets are extremely questionable, the safety benefits of a rally style harness and helmet while driving are not. If you actually followed the principles you claim to, you'd helmet up for driving as well as, or instead of, for cycling.
Erm... so I think that 1/80 and 1/142 are actually pretty similar. Since the average active cyclist drives less than the average motorist, maybe they are even closer for me! Thanks for your web research - saved me a couple of minutes there.
Here's why:
When I drive I have a seatbelt, crumple zones and several airbags.
When I cycle I wear a foam helmet.
I'd say that the driving safety measures I take are far more extensive than the cycling safety measures. Not wearing a helmet would only make matters worse.Now, if helmets for cycling that really worked were available - instead of ineffective foam daubs - that would be another thing.
Ah, well I agree with you here, helmets could be better. But you know, they'd still work on the same principle.
What you appear to be saying is that, in principle, distributing the force of a fall over a wider area of your skull, and lengthening the period of imact by use of a deformable structure is a good idea.
Great! That's it, the "for's" win, and it only took 7 pages. We can all go home.
However, you are also saying that present products don't perform this function well enough, so as a protest, you are not going to wear one at all.
In the interim before better helmets are available, maybe you can cycle around with a sign on your back pointing to your bare head, saying "Helmet manufacturers and Eurocrats - look what you made me do!"
You have my thanks for this sacrifice.0 -
No "descent" - simply a sensible question - why expect your child towear a helmet on a cycle and not when toddling -?<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 -
Er.. I don't want to get involved in statistics but I think I'm gonna have to. If a car driver has, say, a 60 year driving career then the 1/80 chance of dying means that in any given year they will have a 1/4800 chance of dying. Given about 1000 car drivers die a year then that would imply there are only about 5 million drivers in the UK.
Since there are about 31million licence holders my maths tells me that this equates to roughly a 1/500 chance of death while driving. Unless I can't add up. which is likely
0 -
ellieb wrote:Er.. I don't want to get involved in statistics but I think I'm gonna have to. If a car driver has, say, a 60 year driving career then the 1/80 chance of dying means that in any given year they will have a 1/4800 chance of dying. Given about 1000 car drivers die a year then that would imply there are only about 5 million drivers in the UK.
Since there are about 31million licence holders my maths tells me that this equates to roughly a 1/500 chance of death while driving. Unless I can't add up. which is likely
No, I think you are right. I calculated about 5000 road deaths a year.
But its a statistic and is therefore irrefutable.0 -
Cunobelin wrote:No "descent" - simply a sensible question - why expect your child towear a helmet on a cycle and not when toddling -?
Okay, so can we just park the toddler question until there are available statistics on toddling miles per serious head injury? Then we might be able to give this topic the serious consideration it deserves.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:Cunobelin wrote:No "descent" - simply a sensible question - why expect your child towear a helmet on a cycle and not when toddling -?
Okay, so can we just park the toddler question until there are available statistics on toddling miles per serious head injury? Then we might be able to give this topic the serious consideration it deserves.
Which is why looking at admissions is a better measure of the achievement of helmets.
Helmets only function where there is an accident - they are useless when the accident isn't happening. They only function at the point of imapct and this is the point at which their effect can be measured..
Let us go back to some claims - one is helmets will prevent 85% of head injures.....dubious but let's accept it for this argument.
THis implies that if a hospital sees 100 head injuries 85 will no longer need admission i they wear a helmet.
Now we look at the admissions in the stats above (10 - 15year olds). If all these individuals had been wearrng helmets then we could have prevented....
120 head injuries from falls
85 head injuries from pedestrian RTAs
49 head injures from being struck by objects
34 head injuries from assaults
27 head injuries from bicycle associated falls
27 head injuries from cycle RTAs
We then convince all cyclists to wear helmets and combine both cycle related figures to save a total of 54 head injuries during the year.
We would have prevented more head injures if the pedestrian RTAs had been wearing helmets and over twice as many head injuries would have been prevented if all those who suffered falls were wearing helmets.
Why allow such carnage?
Why accept such injuries when they can so easily be prevented?
All the pro-helmet arguments apply... think about it and try logical reasoning to justify this outrageous waste of young lives<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 -
... and a more structured review.....
Kennedy, in the British Journal of Sports Medicine looked at head injuries in cyclists . ALL deaths in Sheffield and Barnsley were examined and cyclists selected a control group of matching non cyclists (sex / age / year of death) was also selected.
Non-helmeted cyclist were matched withthe controls and it was assumed that every cyclist would have survived if they had been wearing a helmet...(Generous!)
It was calculated that over the 15years that 14 lives would have been saved.
An impressive result that justifies helmet use.
Wouldn't you agree?<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 -
Mmm, okay, lets do some multiplication.
Population of Sheffield and Barnsley - approx 600,000.
Population of UK - approx 60,000,000
Shall we say, generously, that number of cycling miles accounted for my the under 15's is 10%?
I make that about 1000 lives a year.
Gosh, yes, I agree, an impressive result. Given that driving costs about 5000 lives a year, but accounts for far, far more hours and milesthan cycling, 1000 lives is a huge statistic.
Of course, we might actually be talking about something rather less substantial, like 1000 people saved from death and/or head injury.
You will no doubt contend that the 10% of cycling miles accounted for by the under 15's is a total stab in the dark (based on about 10% of one's cycling years being accounted for by ages 10-15, more miles being ridden by older riders, compensated by increased risk of accidents in less experienced riders).
However, anything approaching 100 would make a big imact in our small community and numbers in the several 100's to 1000 of seriously injured people with their normal lives to thank for helmets would be a big deal.
The point is, its easy to play with numbers to make them tell what ever story you want them to.
Once again, thanks for saving me 5 minutes' internet research.
What are the toddler brain damage stats for Sheffield?0 -
Okay misread slightly - factor of 10 in there. Still, I think that 100 deaths/head injuries per year is pretty significant.0
-
Sorry meanwhile, there is evidence that helmets work - I'm still alive
This despite repeated attempts to stop suddenly at high speed without using the brakes. I don't do 12 mph, so take it from a satisfied user that they are magic at my long term average speed of 28 kph when you hit the deck.
What they clearly wont do is prevent facial injury as you suggest - how could they do that :? but they will help to prevent cranial injury and i have two broken helmets to prove it.
Hey - there are lies, damned lies and statistics, but I'm sure you enjoyed the 'research'.0 -
AAgghhh!!!!
I shouldn't, I really shouldn't...
1. I don't think that helmets should be mandatory - the beneifts are too modest to justify the loss of liberty
2. I think helmets are likely to reduce the severity of relatively minor impacts. For me, that's worth the very limited hassle in waering one (limited for me, others feel differently
Now that's out of the way I'm going to have to respond to Cunobellins willfully idiotic logic in suggesting that because more pedestrians suffer head injuries, we should advocate helmets for pedestrians before cyclists (as I say, aaaggghhh!!!!).
The issue is the balance between risk and cost.
risk - chance of a person indulging in an activity having an accident
cost - cost of mitigating that risk (i.e. economic and convenience cost of wearing a helmet)
Although more pedestrians suffer head injuries this is because there are MANY MORE pedestrians than cyclists. It remains a very low risk activity (even lower than cycling!). The balance between cost and risk is less pursuasive than for cycling (which as I make clear above is not compelling anyway).
If you follow Cuno's argument then human cannon balls would not wear helmets, after all, how many of them do your meet in A&E? Equally, white people (in Britain) should wear helmets before back people - because more white people suffer head injuries in Britain (for the hard of thinking, that's because white people outnumber black people).
as I say, I shouldn't rise to the bait but crimes against logic offend me!
Cheers,
J0 -
Always Tyred wrote:Mmm, okay, lets do some multiplication.
Population of Sheffield and Barnsley - approx 600,000.
Population of UK - approx 60,000,000
Shall we say, generously, that number of cycling miles accounted for my the under 15's is 10%?
I make that about 1000 lives a year.
Gosh, yes, I agree, an impressive result. Given that driving costs about 5000 lives a year, but accounts for far, far more hours and milesthan cycling, 1000 lives is a huge statistic.
Of course, we might actually be talking about something rather less substantial, like 1000 people saved from death and/or head injury.
You will no doubt contend that the 10% of cycling miles accounted for by the under 15's is a total stab in the dark (based on about 10% of one's cycling years being accounted for by ages 10-15, more miles being ridden by older riders, compensated by increased risk of accidents in less experienced riders).
However, anything approaching 100 would make a big imact in our small community and numbers in the several 100's to 1000 of seriously injured people with their normal lives to thank for helmets would be a big deal.
The point is, its easy to play with numbers to make them tell what ever story you want them to.
Once again, thanks for saving me 5 minutes' internet research.
What are the toddler brain damage stats for Sheffield?
I must admit to being a little devious here..... I only reported on half the papers results.....
Interestingly the paper also showed that aplying the same criteria to the control groups would save 175 lives in the same period.A similar calculation based on the controls suggests that if all pedestrians and vehicle occupants had worn helmets, 175 lives might have been saved in the same period.
Over 10 times as many lives saved.....
Given your enthusiasm for the 14 lives saved....
Are you as enthusiastic about these lives, or are we simply going to dismiss 10.000 lives (by your calculation) as acceptable?
Or are we now going to dismiss this as it no longer meets the agenda?
1000 lives saved - essential safety requirement
10,000 lives saved ....... must be more essential surely?<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 -
jedster wrote:AAgghhh!!!!
I shouldn't, I really shouldn't...
1. I don't think that helmets should be mandatory - the beneifts are too modest to justify the loss of liberty
2. I think helmets are likely to reduce the severity of relatively minor impacts. For me, that's worth the very limited hassle in waering one (limited for me, others feel differently
Now that's out of the way I'm going to have to respond to Cunobellins willfully idiotic logic in suggesting that because more pedestrians suffer head injuries, we should advocate helmets for pedestrians before cyclists (as I say, aaaggghhh!!!!).
The issue is the balance between risk and cost.
risk - chance of a person indulging in an activity having an accident
cost - cost of mitigating that risk (i.e. economic and convenience cost of wearing a helmet)
Although more pedestrians suffer head injuries this is because there are MANY MORE pedestrians than cyclists. It remains a very low risk activity (even lower than cycling!). The balance between cost and risk is less pursuasive than for cycling (which as I make clear above is not compelling anyway).
If you follow Cuno's argument then human cannon balls would not wear helmets, after all, how many of them do your meet in A&E? Equally, white people (in Britain) should wear helmets before back people - because more white people suffer head injuries in Britain (for the hard of thinking, that's because white people outnumber black people).
as I say, I shouldn't rise to the bait but crimes against logic offend me!
Cheers,
J
Wardlaw in the BMJ suggest that your "risk" is erroneous....Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled; a mile of walking must be more "dangerous" than a mile of cycling.
The question you have to ask is simple.... which is the more logical quottation?
Failing to wear a helmet will turn 200 people into a vegetable / organ donor etc and this is unacceptable and needs to be dealt with...
Failing to wear a helmet will turn 2,000 people into vegetables ./ organ donors etc , but this is fine......
As for the Human Cannonball - the logic is a flawed asssumpion, if a helmet is reuired - feel free to werar one. That is not in dispute
However the the truer analogy is suggesting that making helmets compulsory for Human Cannonballs is a good idea, but accepting the headi injury toll in cyclists.
Finally don't forget that if you consider "risk" - cyclists kill more people each year than White Vans!<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 -
Cunobelin wrote:Always Tyred wrote:Mmm, okay, lets do some multiplication.
Population of Sheffield and Barnsley - approx 600,000.
Population of UK - approx 60,000,000
Shall we say, generously, that number of cycling miles accounted for my the under 15's is 10%?
I make that about 1000 lives a year.
Gosh, yes, I agree, an impressive result. Given that driving costs about 5000 lives a year, but accounts for far, far more hours and milesthan cycling, 1000 lives is a huge statistic.
Of course, we might actually be talking about something rather less substantial, like 1000 people saved from death and/or head injury.
You will no doubt contend that the 10% of cycling miles accounted for by the under 15's is a total stab in the dark (based on about 10% of one's cycling years being accounted for by ages 10-15, more miles being ridden by older riders, compensated by increased risk of accidents in less experienced riders).
However, anything approaching 100 would make a big imact in our small community and numbers in the several 100's to 1000 of seriously injured people with their normal lives to thank for helmets would be a big deal.
The point is, its easy to play with numbers to make them tell what ever story you want them to.
Once again, thanks for saving me 5 minutes' internet research.
What are the toddler brain damage stats for Sheffield?
I must admit to being a little devious here..... I only reported on half the papers results.....
Interestingly the paper also showed that aplying the same criteria to the control groups would save 175 lives in the same period.A similar calculation based on the controls suggests that if all pedestrians and vehicle occupants had worn helmets, 175 lives might have been saved in the same period.
Over 10 times as many lives saved.....
Given your enthusiasm for the 14 lives saved....
Are you as enthusiastic about these lives, or are we simply going to dismiss 10.000 lives (by your calculation) as acceptable?
Or are we now going to dismiss this as it no longer meets the agenda?
1000 lives saved - essential safety requirement
10,000 lives saved ....... must be more essential surely?
You keep saying more or less the same thing in imaginative new ways.
You can't have it both ways - either the study is bollox or it isn't - you can't discredit one half of the study by comparing it to the other half.
When I was in research, we used to talk about studies like this as "bible code research". It is a bit dismissive and its fair to say that hindsight analysis of this sort provide useful clues towards what might be worth a properly designed study, but they shouldn't be over analysed.
That said, lets have another look;
Your point is that, aparrently, all other transportation activities result in higher death rates than cycling. The flip side is that cycling accounts for about 8% of all deaths.
That seems a lot to me.
In order for your point that wearing helmets for cycling is out of proportion to other activities to be valid, cyclists would have to account for 8% of road and pedestrian commuters. Where I live, there are rather more cars-per-cyclist than that.
I had a quick look around and this was all I could find:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 81347.html
suggesting that about 2% of journeys are made by bike and that after steady increases. So you have to find a factor of at least 4 in your data somewhere.
So, try as I might, I can't see your point - your stats seem to bear out the position that, of the activities analysed, cycling is disproportionately dangerous.
However, I'd emphasise that its more than likely an instriguing statistical analysis and not a study on cycle safety.
You tell me that I'm getting all sentimental about 10.000 lives (which is an unjustified number of significant figures, by the way) whereas I think I managed to calculate 100 per year. Of course, the number would be orders of magnitude greater for merely "serious" or "slightly serious" injuries. How big a number is worthy of consideration? Of course, the absolute number is less imporant than the number as a proportion of hours on the bike (or miles travelled if that is your preference).
So, honestly, I read all of the stats as supporting my position, not yours.
I think someone's already tried to explain to you that by your logic, lion taming is less hazardous than going shopping. I mean, how often do you hear of someone carrying a chair getting mauled by a lion?0 -
Cunobelin wrote:jedster wrote:AAgghhh!!!!
I shouldn't, I really shouldn't...
1. I don't think that helmets should be mandatory - the beneifts are too modest to justify the loss of liberty
2. I think helmets are likely to reduce the severity of relatively minor impacts. For me, that's worth the very limited hassle in waering one (limited for me, others feel differently
Now that's out of the way I'm going to have to respond to Cunobellins willfully idiotic logic in suggesting that because more pedestrians suffer head injuries, we should advocate helmets for pedestrians before cyclists (as I say, aaaggghhh!!!!).
The issue is the balance between risk and cost.
risk - chance of a person indulging in an activity having an accident
cost - cost of mitigating that risk (i.e. economic and convenience cost of wearing a helmet)
Although more pedestrians suffer head injuries this is because there are MANY MORE pedestrians than cyclists. It remains a very low risk activity (even lower than cycling!). The balance between cost and risk is less pursuasive than for cycling (which as I make clear above is not compelling anyway).
If you follow Cuno's argument then human cannon balls would not wear helmets, after all, how many of them do your meet in A&E? Equally, white people (in Britain) should wear helmets before back people - because more white people suffer head injuries in Britain (for the hard of thinking, that's because white people outnumber black people).
as I say, I shouldn't rise to the bait but crimes against logic offend me!
Cheers,
J
Wardlaw in the BMJ suggest that your "risk" is erroneous....Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled; a mile of walking must be more "dangerous" than a mile of cycling.
The question you have to ask is simple.... which is the more logical quottation?
Failing to wear a helmet will turn 200 people into a vegetable / organ donor etc and this is unacceptable and needs to be dealt with...
Failing to wear a helmet will turn 2,000 people into vegetables ./ organ donors etc , but this is fine......
As for the Human Cannonball - the logic is a flawed asssumpion, if a helmet is reuired - feel free to werar one. That is not in dispute
However the the truer analogy is suggesting that making helmets compulsory for Human Cannonballs is a good idea, but accepting the headi injury toll in cyclists.
Finally don't forget that if you consider "risk" - cyclists kill more people each year than White Vans!
Dude, bikes go a hell of a lot faster than pedestrians. So for every minute you are on a bike, you've again helpfully provided data indicating that cycling is about 4 or 5 times more dangerous.0 -
You can't have it both ways - either the study is bollox or it isn't - you can't discredit one half of the study by comparing it to the other half.
Exactly the point - the helmet evidence was accepted unequivocally - now we are asking for the rest of the paper to be considered it is now a problem. I suspectedthere would be a change in attitude to the paper once the fact that more head injuries would be prvented by other groups wearing helmets - and I was correct. I have not discredited either half - I asked for the second half to be given the same enthuiastic support given to the first half, but as that in apparently not forthcoming, one must ask why?
It always amuses me with the change in attitude when the full paper is revealed - and how quickly the enthusiasm wanes
The paper suggests that if 14 lives are saved with cyclists wearing helmets and 175 with pedstrian / driver helmets helmets then it seems fairly basic as to where the helmets should be worn. The conclusion bears this out that legislation for cycle hemmets is insupportable until all head injury groups are cosidered.
However if we are content to allow 175 preventable deaths simply because they are "Inconvenient" to our agenda then that speaks volumes over why we are considering helmet use - it certainly has nothing to do with preventing head injuries.Dude, bikes go a hell of a lot faster than pedestrians. So for every minute you are on a bike, you've again helpfully provided data indicating that cycling is about 4 or 5 times more dangerous.
Exactly why cyclists kill so many pedestrians!
Which would you prefer
Per Journey tavelled
Per distance travelled
Per time travelled
Of course we could also look at speed from an effectiveness point of view, as those choosing to travel above 12 mph are deliberatlely increasingtheir risk of a head injury by ignoringthe limitations of the helmet.<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 -
As far as I can tell, a person says to you, "cycling is 4 or 5 times more dangerous than walking, so I wear a helmet for cycling but not walking"
and you come back to them and say, "exactly my point! so we should obviously wear helmets for walking"
Someone says to you "there are millions of pedestrians and each year 10 deaths might be prevented, whereas there are 10 lion tamers and each year 10 deaths might be prevented, therefore lion taming is more dangerous and thus one might consider extra safety precautions as compared to being a pedestrian"
you come back and say, "exactly my point! just as many pedestrians die as lion tamers, so pedestrians should also carry around protective chairs".
I can think of several possibilities to explain this odd behaviour:
- you are mad
- your computer screen is upside down
- your computer has a virus
- you can't count
- you are winding me up0 -
Always - can't be bothered to wade through the whole thread but your last response was bloody hilarious!
I wear a helmet for cycling (reckon it's saved my life once and nasty head injuries another time) and walk in a 1930s diving suit - just in case.0
