Helmets!! Sorry, but this needs to be seen...
Comments
-
That's what you said isn't it?ALIHISGREAT wrote:PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE MAKE HELMETS COMPULSORY0 -
Rolf F wrote:Bustacapp wrote:Rubbish. We can only deal with the facts. As we can never know the proportion of helmet to non helmet wearers, I would say that this table is the best indicator of Helmet Safety available.
Lol. "We can never know the proportion of helmet to non helmet wearers" yet mysteriously we can know the proportion of helmet to non helmet wearers killed in accidents!
You have a lot to learn about data analysis. It doesn't have to be about matching helmets to corpses; we do have the option of actually asking people about their use of helmets........ And a summary table is of little use to anyone who is interested in the facts unless it comes with a lot of information about how the data was collated. For all we know, the helmet wearers were all children riding in the park on grass and the non helmet wearers people commuting in LA.
If you think that it's a 'mystery' how figures are collected for reported deaths involving helmet/non-helmet wearers then I think it is you who has a lot to learn about data analysis pal.0 -
ALIHISGREAT wrote:
You can't make a causal interpretation of the treatment effect of helmets from that fact alone.
The only interpretation that can be made from that table is exactly as it was represented in the report:
"Ninety-one percent of cyclists killed in 2009 weren't wearing helmets"
Trying to see it as anything else is just ignorant.
Erm...this is what I have been saying?0 -
Once again a debate about a contentious issue degenerates into a slanging match ...0
-
Mikey23 wrote:Once again a debate about a contentious issue degenerates into a slanging match ...
It's not contentious. It is a simple matter of fact that if you wear a cycling helmet you are less likely to suffer a head injury if involved in an accident.
The contention relates to the OP's misunderstanding of the data he presented.0 -
Bustacapp wrote:Rolf F wrote:Bustacapp wrote:Rubbish. We can only deal with the facts. As we can never know the proportion of helmet to non helmet wearers, I would say that this table is the best indicator of Helmet Safety available.
Lol. "We can never know the proportion of helmet to non helmet wearers" yet mysteriously we can know the proportion of helmet to non helmet wearers killed in accidents!
You have a lot to learn about data analysis. It doesn't have to be about matching helmets to corpses; we do have the option of actually asking people about their use of helmets........ And a summary table is of little use to anyone who is interested in the facts unless it comes with a lot of information about how the data was collated. For all we know, the helmet wearers were all children riding in the park on grass and the non helmet wearers people commuting in LA.
If you think that it's a 'mystery' how figures are collected for reported deaths involving helmet/non-helmet wearers then I think it is you who has a lot to learn about data analysis pal.
I'm curious to know where you think I said that I think it is a mystery how figures are collected for reported deaths. I'm also curious to know how, if I actually believed this, it would mean I didn't know about data analysis given that the tasks of collecting data and analysing it are two separate processes.Faster than a tent.......0 -
DavidJB wrote:Hoopdriver wrote:
Nothing like breathless assumptions...junglist_matty wrote:All it proves is that people who don't wear a helmet are more likely to be bad cyclists, i.e. those muppets on town bikes who don't wear helmets who also jump red lights, pull out in front of cars, try and undertake motorists who are turning left, wobble all over the road, ride drunk, (the list goes on).....
If they started wearing helmets, the "number of deaths" stats would be no different, just that 100% would be wearing helmets.
Its true though. Jean and t-shirt wearing idiots on £100 mtb from Tesco are the worst kind of 'person on a bike' I wouldn't class them as cyclists.
What a snob!! You should be ashamed of yourself making such a statement.0 -
Call me dense if you like but I'd have thought the cause of death might have some bearing on it all. If you're not wearing a helmet when a lorry crushes your abdomen does that still count as an argument for helmets?Bustacapp wrote:ALIHISGREAT wrote:
You can't make a causal interpretation of the treatment effect of helmets from that fact alone.
The only interpretation that can be made from that table is exactly as it was represented in the report:
"Ninety-one percent of cyclists killed in 2009 weren't wearing helmets"
Trying to see it as anything else is just ignorant.
Erm...this is what I have been saying?0 -
Bustacapp wrote:It doesn't make any estimation. Only facts.
That's not in question. It's whether the facts are useful that matters.
If we had a table of of cyclists who die in accidents in the UK by race, I'm pretty sure that the majority would be white. It would be a fact that most cyclists who die in accidents are white. Does this mean that white cyclists are more likely to die in accidents than black cyclists? No, we can't infer than without knowing what proportion of cyclists are white and what proportion are black. It might just be a reflection of the fact that more cyclists are white than black. It's basic statistics.0 -
Zingaiya wrote:Without knowing the proportions of riders who wear helmets to those that don't, it's not a terribly useful table.
I still wear a helmet though.
The data you seek is irrelevant. The figures quoted by the OP clearly show that of all the people killed cycling, over 90% of them was not wearing a helmet.
It matters not if they only represent 1% of the cycling population - the fact remains that if you do get knocked off the chances of serious/fatal injury are far, far greater if you do not have a helmet (according to the quoted statistics).Yellow is the new Black.0 -
No. You're still ignoring the cause of death and whether the helmet or lack of mattered. It's not that difficult, you just have to look past the big impressive number that matches your view.smidsy wrote:Zingaiya wrote:Without knowing the proportions of riders who wear helmets to those that don't, it's not a terribly useful table.
I still wear a helmet though.
The data you seek is irrelevant. The figures quoted by the OP clearly show that of all the people killed cycling, over 90% of them was not wearing a helmet.
It matters not if they only represent 1% of the cycling population - the fact remains that if you do get knocked off the chances of serious/fatal injury are far, far greater if you do not have a helmet (according to the quoted statistics).0 -
I have decided to ignore all statistics and just do WTF I like :-)Yellow is the new Black.0
-
Using similar data collection and presentation techniques could tell us the proportion of cyclist fatalities that have Prince Albert piercings. Aside from anything else we don't know what the cause of death was in each case, do we?
Ever considered a job as a journalist for the Daily Mail?
0 -
Simon Masterson wrote:Using similar data collection and presentation techniques could tell us the proportion of cyclist fatalities that have Prince Albert piercings. Aside from anything else we don't know what the cause of death was in each case, do we?
Probability dictates that even if you erred on the conservative side, it is highly likely that lack of helmets were the major contributing factor to the high mortality rate of riders who wore no helmets.0 -
No. Without having a good idea of what proportion of American riders wear helmets where helmet wearing isn't compulsory, and the various causes of death, it's not possible to discern anything of value from such a bare dataset. It comes full circle to my reason for not wearing one. In 44 years of falling off bikes I'm yet to have an injury that a helmet would have mitigated, and don't know anyone else who has either. Yet according to some interpretatiions of this data virtually every cyclist death is head-related.Bustacapp wrote:Simon Masterson wrote:Using similar data collection and presentation techniques could tell us the proportion of cyclist fatalities that have Prince Albert piercings. Aside from anything else we don't know what the cause of death was in each case, do we?
Probability dictates that even if you erred on the conservative side, it is highly likely that lack of helmets were the major contributing factor to the high mortality rate of riders who wore no helmets.
Too many holes, too many assumptions. Even you've gone from taking it as definitive proof to highly likely.0 -
smidsy wrote:Zingaiya wrote:Without knowing the proportions of riders who wear helmets to those that don't, it's not a terribly useful table.
I still wear a helmet though.
The data you seek is irrelevant. The figures quoted by the OP clearly show that of all the people killed cycling, over 90% of them was not wearing a helmet.
It matters not if they only represent 1% of the cycling population - the fact remains that if you do get knocked off the chances of serious/fatal injury are far, far greater if you do not have a helmet (according to the quoted statistics).
no it doesn't
if the proportion of non helmet wearers per cycled mile is high enough then the % killed wearing a helmet would suggest you were more likely to die wearing one... think about it
hypothetical if only 1% wear a wear a helmet but 10% of fatalities are ...with all other things being equal (they are not but lets say they are) it would mean you were 10 times more likely to die wearing one than not.
to be true that helmet wearers are safer then the percentage of helmet wearers dying as a total of fatalities has to be less than the percentage wearing them in general
for the record I believe wearing a helmet is sound policy."If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
Quite. No head injury ever hence lucid coherent arguments that attempt to dismantle the hysterical views of those that leap on any evidence in support of hats however spurious? Couldn't agree more.smidsy wrote:CiB wrote:It comes full circle to my reason for not wearing one. In 44 years of falling off bikes I'm yet to have an injury that a helmet would have mitigated.
Now THAT explains a lot 0 -
CiB wrote:No. Without having a good idea of what proportion of American riders wear helmets where helmet wearing isn't compulsory, and the various causes of death, it's not possible to discern anything of value from such a bare dataset. It comes full circle to my reason for not wearing one. In 44 years of falling off bikes I'm yet to have an injury that a helmet would have mitigated, and don't know anyone else who has either. Yet according to some interpretatiions of this data virtually every cyclist death is head-related.
Too many holes, too many assumptions. Even you've gone from taking it as definitive proof to highly likely.
I've not got lung cancer or know anyone who's got it. But I still don't smoke.
A friend of mine works in a neurological centre and has seen a lot of people who's injuries were the result of merely falling to the floor from a bike (head slapping the ground).
The OP's statistics are only showing deaths too. I wonder how many people have permanent head/brain damage due to not protecting their cranium? I understand you not wearing a helmet, all I'm saying is it's not a bad habit to get into.0 -
smidsy wrote:The data you seek is irrelevant. The figures quoted by the OP clearly show that of all the people killed cycling, over 90% of them was not wearing a helmet.
It matters not if they only represent 1% of the cycling population - the fact remains that if you do get knocked off the chances of serious/fatal injury are far, far greater if you do not have a helmet (according to the quoted statistics).
It would matter a lot if only 1 per cent didn't wear a helmet and 90 per cent of people killed weren't wearing them, because it would mean non helmet wearers would be 90 times more likely to die. If 90 per cent don't wear a helmet and 90 per cent killed weren't wearing one, that would mean that people with and without helmets were equally likely to die. Simple really.0 -
I think its sensible to wear a helmet and glasses while riding a bike as it seems natural to protect your head and eyes.
What other safety measures do non wearers of helmets advocate omitting? Helmet when skate boarding? Helmet riding a moped? Hard hat on a building site
Are they happy that their children do not wear helmets doing these things?0 -
OK OK, let's step away from the stats. Put doen the calculator Princess, and let's think about this.
The number of people that die from cycling accidents that do or don't wear helmets is irrelevant. It's also very difficult to determine the cause of death in such accidents. If fat sweaty Bill has a heart attack on a bike while not wearing a helmet, the lack of helmet is not the cause. So, as the stats are pretty pointless, we need to be logical and think about what we're trying to argue.
Does having a protective barrier between a soft(ish) skull and a hard(ish) road decrease the damage done to the soft(ish) skull in the event that somebody hits their head on the road? Obviously, it does in the majority of cases, but not every single case anybody could ever think of. But ignoring the hysterics, YES, in the majority of cases.
So, would it be safer to wear a helmet than not wear a helmet? Obviously yes, if a major risk is falling and hitting one's head on something hard. If I were able to cycle to work on a road made of marshmallow, I would probably leave my helmet at home. But the UK's roads aren't made of soft stuff, they're quite hard so I have made the decision to mitigate that risk.
NOBODY should doubt that it's generally safer to wear a helmet than not wear one in the majority of cases, but people should decide what they want to do based on their own opinions and preferences. People should argue that they have the right to choose, but it's quite silly to argue there is not a safety benefit from wearing a helmet in the same way people wouldn't argue it's safer to not wear a seatbelt. Even if you only ride 10m to the shops and back once in a hunderd years, it's safer to do it wearing a helmet. It is, it really is. Let's stop saying it isn't.
It's up to you if you do or not; I really don't care. If somebody wants to climb up Mt Everest naked, that's their choice, but it would be safer to do it clothed, FACT. Let's not pretend it isn't.0 -
Bustacapp wrote:Simon Masterson wrote:Using similar data collection and presentation techniques could tell us the proportion of cyclist fatalities that have Prince Albert piercings. Aside from anything else we don't know what the cause of death was in each case, do we?
Probability dictates that even if you erred on the conservative side, it is highly likely that lack of helmets were the major contributing factor to the high mortality rate of riders who wore no helmets.
If the head injury is severe enough to be fatal, probability dictates that the cycle helmet isn't the deciding factor.
But whilst you can count me in as another cyclist who hasn't suffered a head injury whilst cycling, I'm guessing that if probability comes into it you can produce the statistics that indicate the [high] frequency of head injuries in cycling, then? 0 -
Ok princess. Fact! (Because you have to say that otherwise no one takes any notice - FACT.GiantMike wrote:OK OK, let's step away from the stats. Put doen the calculator Princess, and let's think about this.
The number of people that die from cycling accidents that do or don't wear helmets is irrelevant. It's also very difficult to determine the cause of death in such accidents. If fat sweaty Bill has a heart attack on a bike while not wearing a helmet, the lack of helmet is not the cause. So, as the stats are pretty pointless, we need to be logical and think about what we're trying to argue.
Does having a protective barrier between a soft(ish) skull and a hard(ish) road decrease the damage done to the soft(ish) skull in the event that somebody hits their head on the road? Obviously, it does in the majority of cases, but not every single case anybody could ever think of. But ignoring the hysterics, YES, in the majority of cases.
So, would it be safer to wear a helmet than not wear a helmet? Obviously yes, if a major risk is falling and hitting one's head on something hard. If I were able to cycle to work on a road made of marshmallow, I would probably leave my helmet at home. But the UK's roads aren't made of soft stuff, they're quite hard so I have made the decision to mitigate that risk.
NOBODY should doubt that it's generally safer to wear a helmet than not wear one in the majority of cases, but people should decide what they want to do based on their own opinions and preferences. People should argue that they have the right to choose, but it's quite silly to argue there is not a safety benefit from wearing a helmet in the same way people wouldn't argue it's safer to not wear a seatbelt. Even if you only ride 10m to the shops and back once in a hunderd years, it's safer to do it wearing a helmet. It is, it really is. Let's stop saying it isn't.
It's up to you if you do or not; I really don't care. If somebody wants to climb up Mt Everest naked, that's their choice, but it would be safer to do it clothed, FACT. Let's not pretend it isn't. ) you're basing the whole "safer" thing on the probability of having a fall off your bike and that fall involving a head injury. At that point a helmet starts having the potential to be useful.
So if we can establish that the chance of an accident is infinitesimally small, then there is no point protecting against something that isn't going to happen - a bit like putting suntan lotion on for uk cycling - you know it's going to rain !
So at the end of the day- to wear a helmet or not is down to the individuals own perception of risk, based on the activity they're embarking on and the location that it will occur - plus a few other bits n bobs - so if I'm off for a ride down a river path or anywhere next to deep water you could argue that I stand a reasonable chance of ending up in that water - so should I wear a life jacket as well as a helmet?
Oh. I have said FACT for a bit. Is that ok? FACT. (Just in case you didn't see the first one)0 -
Slowbike wrote:You're basing the whole "safer" thing on the probability of having a fall off your bike and that fall involving a head injury. At that point a helmet starts having the potential to be useful.
yes, I know. That's what I typed. I'm not saying it makes it entirely safe, just safer.Slowbike wrote:So if we can establish that the chance of an accident is infinitesimally small, then there is no point protecting against something that isn't going to happen - a bit like putting suntan lotion on for uk cycling - you know it's going to rain !
But it isn't infinitesimally small. Anyway, that's not the point. As I said in my post, it is safer regardless of how small the risk is. You are mitigating against a known and real risk, therefore it's safer unless that mitigation adds other risks, which it doesn't.Slowbike wrote:So at the end of the day- to wear a helmet or not is down to the individuals own perception of risk, based on the activity they're embarking on and the location that it will occur
Yes, I know. That's what I typed. You're agreeing with me again.Slowbike wrote:so if I'm off for a ride down a river path or anywhere next to deep water you could argue that I stand a reasonable chance of ending up in that water - so should I wear a life jacket as well as a helmet?
That would be your personal choice based on the level of risk you preceived and how risk-averse you felt that day. But, it would be safer to have a life jacket on if you fell into deep water. And that is a fact. And there would be a chance (greater than infinitesimally small) that you would fall into the water. So, if you multiply the chance of falling into water by the consequence of it happening, you get some idea of the risk. It's basic risk management.
And if you ate too much as the beach and got a cab home, it would be safer to wear a seatbelt than not. Although a seatbelt wouldn't save you from the falling satellite that hits your cab, and nor would the helmet or lifejacket you'd be wearing, because ithey're not designed to.0 -
Please learn the difference between relative and absolute risk.
http://www.badscience.net/2008/11/you-a ... t-all-day/0 -
Zingaiya wrote:Please learn the difference between relative and absolute risk.
http://www.badscience.net/2008/11/you-a ... t-all-day/
I do.0 -
The last 2 posts (not including 'I do', lol) are excellent.
On the absolute risk thing.... So if my risk, hypothetically, of having an accident that leads to a fatal head injury is currently 0.37% but wearing a helmet reduces this to 0.17% then that has more than satisfied me that having a helmet on is the right decision. After all, according to my survey on here 95% of us wear helmets so therefore I look the part more than a non helmet wearing person, I am safer, my helmet only cost £60, I literally forget its on my head after 2 mins because its so light and comfortable, its amazingly well ventilated so I don't over heat, it colour coordinates with my clothing and bike, and buying it alongside my shoes meant I got a third item for free.
No brainer.0 -
GiantMike wrote:Slowbike wrote:So if we can establish that the chance of an accident is infinitesimally small, then there is no point protecting against something that isn't going to happen - a bit like putting suntan lotion on for uk cycling - you know it's going to rain !
But it isn't infinitesimally small. Anyway, that's not the point. As I said in my post, it is safer regardless of how small the risk is. You are mitigating against a known and real risk, therefore it's safer unless that mitigation adds other risks, which it doesn't.
Do you have any numbers for that Known and Real Risk. It sounds dramatic ... if that risk was say 30% chance of accident for every mile* then that's a big risk ... but if that risk is < 0.1% then it's not such a big risk - so then you have to ask WHY we're mitigating against a "Known and Real Risk" that is virtually non-existent.
*we'd have to categorise miles into town, country, major, minor roads & offroad.
I know - I don't think we're miles apart in views on wearing helmets. My concern is the "wear your helmet or die" brigade and that this message eventually gets turned into legislation. We've already seen some apparent leniency in sentencing for a driver who knocked a woman off her bike - because she wasn't wearing a helmet? and that contributed to her death?GiantMike wrote:Slowbike wrote:So at the end of the day- to wear a helmet or not is down to the individuals own perception of risk, based on the activity they're embarking on and the location that it will occur
Yes, I know. That's what I typed. You're agreeing with me again.
[soapbox]
We shouldn't have to wear safety kit because of other ppls inability - we may choose to, but it should not be forced upon us and lack of our own safety kit does not absolve others of their responsibility.
[/soapbox]0
