Another little nugget for the helmet debate!

CyclingBantam

Hoopdriver wrote:

Lordy, meanredspider, I tremble at the thought of CIB's village garden - he believes flower arranging is as risky as a countryside commute.

Hoops and Meanredspider...

This is you two and I claim my £5:

CiB

Hoopdriver wrote:

Lordy, meanredspider, I tremble at the thought of CIB's village garden - he believes flower arranging is as risky as a countryside commute.

Have you never watched Midsummer Murders? They film that in our village. It's a documentary. CSI Bumpkinsville; that's what it is.

That's me done, until someone comes up with some more nonsense. <Paging Mr Deuceone to the thread, deuceone - thread awaiting your shouty input.>

Hoopdriver

No CIB - I meant what I said; I read your entry and grasped what you were trying to say in your mixed-up sentence and despite what you undoubtedly feel was the cut-glass clarity of your prose I felt that the arbitrariness of your table could do with a bit more emphasis.

My computer, funnily enough, capped the 'r' in Rugby - I have it set on British spelling so that may be why - but you're quite right, in that context what I wrote becomes unintentionally very funny. And you made quick use of it - I can appreciate that.

I have to say that the only times I have ever been seriously injured while cycling have been on quiet, nay idyllic, country roads when I'd have bet anything you like that nothing was going to happen and then - bang; once a farm truck careened out of nowhere, ran a stop sign and sent me flying and another time, in some lovely wine country in Western Australia, I was zooming down a pretty little lane, on lovely smooth bitumen and then I whizzed around a bend - and the bitumen just wasn't there anymore, no signs, no warnings, just broken up pavement and dirt. And a broken shoulder-blade, broken ribs, broken arm - and broken helmet.

In Australia we are required to wear helmets - it's the law - but had it not been that would have sold me, right there.

Hoopdriver

CIB - you live where they film Midsomer Murders?

I'm impressed you even venture out the door! :-)

thelawnet

meanredspider wrote:

Sounds just like my commutes....except without the other people (which is a risk in itself - any injury I sustain, I'll need to deal with myself for 10-15 minutes before any help arrives/passes by). I always reach speeds around 40 mph and average speeds where falling off is going to hurt. I ride in the dark, in the cold, in the extremely windy & in the extremely wet. Roads are often untreated, less well maintained, cover in mud, shoot and gravel. The vehicles that do come by aren't expecting bikes nor are they that used to dealing with them - roads are single track and corners blind.

The point I'm making is that, just because it's rural with little traffic, doesn't make it benign. That's just your perception.

But you live just west of hell. It's hardly representative of a nice pootle through the Sussex countryside. :P

notsoblue

Coming to this a bit late, but the American football comment is quite relevant this this discussion. I played for my University, so I have a bit of experience. Theres plenty of concussion and neck injuries in the game. Having a helmet and padding doesn't make things safer, it just changes the type of injuries you're likely to get and gives you a false sense of safety as you hurl yourself into more risky hits. Kinda the same way that I cycle faster and take more chances when I'm wearing a helmet.

Hoopdriver

Then don't wear one.

But don't universalize your own proclivities and claim that as an immutable law of behaviour.

Not everybody disdains safety and takes bigger risks when wearing helmets - and not all American football players use their helmets as weapons.

notsoblue

Hoopdriver wrote:

Then don't wear one.

But don't universalize your own proclivities and claim that as an immutable law of behaviour.

Not everybody disdains safety and takes bigger risks when wearing helmets - and not all American football players use their helmets as weapons.

Oh I'm not at all, far from it. I wear a helmet most, but not all of the time. And I don't really care what other people do.

Hoopdriver

Same here, except I always wear a lid. I too don't really care what other folks do.

CyclingBantam

Hoopdriver wrote:

Then don't wear one.

But don't universalize your own proclivities and claim that as an immutable law of behaviour.
Not everybody disdains safety and takes bigger risks when wearing helmets - and not all American football players use their helmets as weapons.

Superb. I bet you have been waiting to shoe horn that in for ages.

In fact, is that the reason you joined this thread.

I had a pal who lived with me. He used completely inappropriate language for the audience (it is a social skill I guess) like you hoops. He did it to inflate his own esteem.

He looked down at most people and really couldn't comprehend that he wasn't super smart.

He is a tit, unemployed (through lazyness, not a lack of jobs) and socially lacking but still scoffs at people he deems below him. It took me to live with him to realise he was the loser and not me/anyone else he looked down on.

Nothing to do with this thread but I just wanted to share the story.

CiB

Hoopdriver wrote:

I too don't really care what other folks do.

Absolutely magnificent. You really don't care, but are willing to spend far too much time banging on about it and disparaging people who don't share your enthusiasm for tv packaging. You couldn't make it up.

tailwindhome

But it's a bear and a shark and an octopus

How frickin awesome is that?

Hoopdriver

No - I have said all along that I am not for compulsory helmet use, and that I couldn't care less what others do as regards helmet wearing. I just do not like to see lies, damned lies and statistics used to discourage helmet use, and arguments put forth that are childish and insulting to the intelligence.

I'd rather people just said they didn't want to wear helmets because they didn't want to, full stop, end of story, instead of pouring forth all these ludicrous justifications and rationalizations.

I'm not sure what you mean by my so-called enthusiasm for TV packaging. I do not watch or own a TV so perhaps I am missing something here.

bearfraser

Cardboard helmet - anyone (not kidding was on another forum & Geek.com)

notsoblue

Hoopdriver wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by my so-called enthusiasm for TV packaging. I do not watch or own a TV so perhapsI am missing something here.

You're welcome.

cee

notsoblue wrote:

Coming to this a bit late, but the American football comment is quite relevant this this discussion. I played for my University, so I have a bit of experience. Theres plenty of concussion and neck injuries in the game. Having a helmet and padding doesn't make things safer, it just changes the type of injuries you're likely to get and gives you a false sense of safety as you hurl yourself into more risky hits. Kinda the same way that I cycle faster and take more chances when I'm wearing a helmet.

on the american rugball stuff....(there is a point near the end....wait for it! )

there was an interesting article in a magazime a while back about the reason for NFL players requiring so much protection vs none in rugby.....

I can't remember what or when, so you will have to take my word for it.....but it reached the conclusion that it was all an arms race.....that the protective equipment itself was causing a lot of injuries (not on the tackler....on the tacklee)....and that actually...the protective equipment was mostly to protect against your opponents protective equipment.

that also ties in nicely to your point about the helmet and pads giving you a sense that you could throw yourself into tackles harder than you would, had you not being wearing the protective equipment.

Not really anything like the difference in how I would imagine you cycle with or without a helmet, but...maybe you strap a helmet on then just ride full pelt into parked cars....I dunno?

notsoblue

cee wrote:

Not really anything like the difference in how I would imagine you cycle with or without a helmet, but...maybe you strap a helmet on then just ride full pelt into parked cars....I dunno?

Course not! I wouldn't want to damage my bike

My post didn't have a clear point really, I suppose I'm saying that wearing a helmet reduces my perception of risk. I wear one on my road bike, but not on my shopper. Mainly because of the difference in the speed and style of riding I do on each. Which is pretty irrational to be honest.

Kieran_Burns

...wanders through.....

http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/nhl/headl ... dence-says

All the evidence says…

A recurrent theme in helmet promotion is that “all the evidence says that helmets reduce head injuries”

[we found it] impossible to definitively quantify the effectiveness or otherwise of cycle helmets based on the literature reviewed. – The potential for cycle helmets to prevent injury – A review of the evidence, Transport Research Laboratory report PPR446

This is wrong on two levels.
No evidence says that anyway!

First and foremost the research does not say that helmets prevent injury, it says that those cyclists who choose to wear helmets were, in the small groups studied, less likely to suffer head injury – in fact less likely to suffer injury of any kind, or to have damage to their bikes in crashes. This does not scale to the population level. In fact, the countries where head injury rates are lowest are the ones with the lowest helmet wearing rates.

Pro-helmet evidence comes from small-scale case-control studies. These all have a problem called confounding – to put it simply, they can’t easily distinguish between the chooser and the choice. If the most cautious cyclists are the ones most likely to wear helmets, which seems reasonable, is this likely to affect the results? The evidence which supports helmet use is the same kind of evidence which showed that combined hormone replacement therapy reduces risk of coronary heart disease – except that it doesn’t. Subsequent clinical trials found that it actually caused a small increase in risk, but the kinds of women who asked for HRT were more likely to be health conscious on other ways. For such an obvious finding this caused a quite disproportionate amount of consternation in the epidemiological community!

More importantly, none of the other types of evidence support the pro-helmet results, either in magnitude or in sign.
Some evidence says the opposite

The existence of evidence which conflicts with the pro-helmet line comes as a surprise to many. The fact that the pro-helmet evidence is of a type which is notoriously weak is rarely mentioned by helmet proponents, and the existence of conflicting evidence is rarely, if ever, mentioned at all.

Most of the conflicting evidence comes from whole-population studies. For example, America’s Consumer Products Safety Commission produced some figures which showed that cyclist head injury rates have increased as helmet use has risen. The same happened in Australia after a helmet law was passed. The largest ever study, by Rodgers of CPSC, which surveyed eight million cyclist injuries, found that there was a small but not significant increase in risk of injury and a small and significant increase in risk of fatality for helmeted riders.

The most widely-studied population may be that of New Zealand, where a mandatory all-ages helmet law was passed in 1994. This resulted in a doubling of helmet use to over 95% in a single year, and no measurable change in cyclist head injury rates. There was a numerical drop in head injuries, and an equivalent numerical drop in non-head injuries, both of which are consistent with the large concurrent observed drop in cycling, but the proportion of cyclists’ injuries which are head injuries trended no better than for pedestrians.
True Believer syndrome

TRL were commissioned by the Department for Transport to review the evidence on cycle safety in general, including helmets. In their report PPR446 they note that “[it was] impossible to definitively quantify the effectiveness or otherwise of cycle helmets based on the literature reviewed” – but then went on, controversially, to propose a small figure for potential lives saved based on their own novel and purely speculative model – something the review was supposed to avoid.

This illustrates a fundamental and recurrent issue with helmet proponents: if the figures don’t give the answer they want, they either change the question or invent new figures. And when they get the answer they want, well, that’s good enough, no need to check further. Which is why a paper by Cook & Sheikh in Injury Prevention went to press with a glaring schoolboy error in the maths, as pointed out in a response by James Annan: Cook and Sheikh calculate helmet effectiveness to be given by the ratio 3.6/5.8 = 60%. However the correct expression to use is 13/7 = 186%. In other words, “helmet effectiveness” is so high that each helmet does not just save its wearer, but a non-wearer too. At this rate, head injuries would be eliminated completely if just a little over half of all cyclists wore them! This is clearly ludicrous. As with the “crisis in epidemiology” resulting from the false link drawn between coronary heart disease and hormone replacement therapy, authors must suspend belief, maintain scepticism and not be seduced by mechanism.

rick_chasey

But, when I'm not on my road bike [childlike tantrum] I DON'T WANT TO WEAR MY HELMET AND CARRY IT AROUND AND LOOK LIKE A T!T *stamps up an down* [/childlike tantrum]

This is the bit all you safety people forget.

It looks rubbish with a good non-cycling outfit and it's a faff to carry around.

I like cycling and it'd put me off the pootle into town which is the best kind of cycling, since it's applicable to everyone.

What I do when I'm a roadie is pretty niche.

Helmets aren't the answer.

Surely effort needs to be put into prevention of the accident, rather than the potential cure once you have one?

Hoopdriver

Again, Mr Burns - just say you don't want to wear a helmet, because you don't want to wear a helmet, and be done with it. Show the strength of your convictions.

Don't trot out a lot of spurious nonsense and grasping-at-straws justifications and rationalizations. You can use statistics to prove absolutely anything you like, anything at all. It's kind of sad you feel it necessary.

Kieran_Burns

Hello wall.

Are you having a nice day wall?

Weather's been a bit crap recently hasn't it?

What's that? Oh you're not listening to a word I'm saying are you wall?

Hoopdriver

Nope

cee

notsoblue wrote:

cee wrote:

Not really anything like the difference in how I would imagine you cycle with or without a helmet, but...maybe you strap a helmet on then just ride full pelt into parked cars....I dunno?

Course not! I wouldn't want to damage my bike

My post didn't have a clear point really, I suppose I'm saying that wearing a helmet reduces my perception of risk. I wear one on my road bike, but not on my shopper. Mainly because of the difference in the speed and style of riding I do on each. Which is pretty irrational to be honest.

See for me....I dont think that the head injury risk adds that much risk to the risk already there for the rest of the body....so strapping a helmet on while i do get that it could change a perception of risk...dont buy into the fact that people cycle furiously when wearing a helmet...and not when not.....

we are all well aware that even wearing a helmet....in an accident....the tarmac always wins.

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

Helmets aren't the answer.

Surely effort needs to be put into prevention of the accident, rather than the potential cure once you have one?

I don't think they are mutually exclusive..

I think the answer lies in trikes...

Much harder to fall off and the helmeted kamikazi pilots won't be able to go so fast.

According to the New Scientist article I read today, they still don't understand why bikes stay upright, FFS. And you ride without a lid!

thelawnet

meanredspider wrote:

According to the New Scientist article I read today, they still don't understand why bikes stay upright, FFS. And you ride without a lid!

In the follow-up article they discover that, while they still don't know why bikes stay upright, they've found the delicate balance gets upset by having a helmet atop your head.

Hoopdriver

Meadredspider - is that this month's New Scientist? I'm not asking because of anything to do with this debate but because i have an interest in it for other reasons. Thanks

meanredspider

Hoopdriver wrote:

Meadredspider - is that this month's New Scientist? I'm not asking because of anything to do with this debate but because i have an interest in it for other reasons. Thanks

Here ya go

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... board.html

Hoopdriver

Many thanks for that meanredspider - fascinating article!

Poacher

@Hoopdriver (et al)

Please read Guy Chapman's take on the Great Helmet Debate, then come back if you really feel the need to continue.







(This will be my default contribution to all further helmet threads - please consider yourselves warned).

meanredspider

Poacher wrote:

@Hoopdriver (et al)

Please read Guy Chapman's take on the Great Helmet Debate, then come back if you really feel the need to continue.

(This will be my default contribution to all further helmet threads - please consider yourselves warned).

This guy is trotting out all the same stuff as on here. I could pick it apart point-by-point because almost none of it stands up to scrutiny - it's just a collection of selective data, biased views and spurious analogies. I was hoping for something concrete but, of course, with this debate, there's nothing concrete. His article is no more valid or impressive than anything I've read on here. It adds nothing.