Helmets!! Sorry, but this needs to be seen...

Mikey23

And it hides my grey hair and ongoing baldness....
And makes me look kind of cool in a weird skeletal kind of way
And individual perception of risk is where it's at
But based on evidence not fairy tale
One could critique the above survey but it at least is attempting to provide some statistics
And does not seem to be commissioned by a safety helmet manufacturer

lc1981

Mikey23 wrote:

But based on evidence not fairy tale
One could critique the above survey but it at least is attempting to provide some statistics
And does not seem to be commissioned by a safety helmet manufacturer

There are already plenty of studies and statistics on helmet use and effectiveness, which are much more informative. Lots of them are cited in this article.

Daz555

This thread is a complete stats fail.

Anyone suggesting that the actual numbers of cyclists who wear helmets is not important are so wrong I have no possibly way of making them right. Without the stats for overall helmet use amongst the same population, the stats in the OP are completely and utterly irrelevant. They are completely devoid of all usefulness. They may as well be deleted and removed from record completely.

The person who conducted that survey, and published it without good helmet use data is an idiot and I hope they were sacked immediately.

Slowbike wrote:

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?

Good post. The pro helmet lobby have actually done real damage in legal terms to cyclists because their campaign and endless banging on about helmet compulsion has eroded in law the principle that you take your victims as you find them.

GiantMike

Slowbike wrote:

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.

I don't have those stats. But I have fallen off twice when I have hit my head. I KNOW it can happen, it REALly did.

Slowbike wrote:

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?

Doesn't bother me in the slightest. Legislation is there for a reason. Like speed limits, paying tax and murder, there is legislation on all manner of things. I don't consider myself important enough to tell the Govt what to do on behalf of everybody else. I'm sure you don't either.

Slowbike wrote:

[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]

You're correct. People should make decisions based on risk, not the source of that risk. If I was a footballer I'd wear shinpads based on the risk of getting kicked in the shins. The fact it's somebody else's inability that made it happen, and that the other footballer should have been responsible enough to not to kick me is irrelevant when I have a broken shin. Accidents happen. I have started to wear a helmet when I ski too.

Daz555

GiantMike wrote:

I have started to wear a helmet when I ski too.

Indeed. As do I. Well when I do when doing anything serious - but not when pootling about with my wife and more casual skier type friends.

Good thing about the snowsports lot is that no-one ever bangs on about helmet use, ever. No-one cares. Just do as you choose. Just as it should be.

lc1981

Daz555 wrote:

Good thing about the snowsports lot is that no-one ever bangs on about helmet use, ever. No-one cares. Just do as you choose. Just as it should be.

To be fair, I think most cyclists are the same. The argument here isn't really about whether people wear helmets or not, it's about bad statistics.

slowbike

GiantMike wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

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?

Doesn't bother me in the slightest. Legislation is there for a reason. Like speed limits, paying tax and murder, there is legislation on all manner of things. I don't consider myself important enough to tell the Govt what to do on behalf of everybody else. I'm sure you don't either.

Legislation might be well intended, but quite often it can have an adverse effect - safety is one tricky subject to get right. We want everyone to be safe and well - but we've already started with legislating the sensible and the arguable - and so it will go on until we legislate the ridiculous.
Personally I'd rather laws were simplified and everyone was able to use common sense and morality - unfortunately not everyone is sensible or shares the same level of morality - so the Gov sets down a lot of these - usually to the lowest common denominator - which imposes stricter controls over those who were quite capable of acting safely and responsibly to start with.

Eg - mobile phone whilst driving law - it's against the law to hold your mobile whilst driving - fair enough you may think - to an extent I agree - however, if you're sat stationary in a traffic jam - is it ok to send a text? Perfectly safe if youre not moving I would've thought ... but according to the law:

The Definition of Driving

Under existing law a person may be regarded as "driving" a vehicle while the engine is running and the vehicle is stationary. The offence applies to all motor vehicles, including motorcycles, but not apply to pedal cycles.

So - it's against the law - despite being "safe" ...

Anyway - what if you've got a stop-start engine - the engine is off & technically you're not then driving... but you're in the same situation as the other cars around you with their engines running....

Did you know that it's also illegal to use a mobile whilst supervising a learner driver ... ? I didn't! Not that I supervise any learner drivers so it's a non-issue atm.

smidsy

Daz555 wrote:

This thread is a complete stats fail.

Anyone suggesting that the actual numbers of cyclists who wear helmets is not important are so wrong I have no possibly way of making them right. Without the stats for overall helmet use amongst the same population, the stats in the OP are completely and utterly irrelevant. They are completely devoid of all usefulness. They may as well be deleted and removed from record completely.

As I said in the dual carriageway thread, people are confusing statistics with probability.

Probability is used to predict the likelihood of outcomes (i.e they have not yet happened).

Statistics are used to quantify the outcomes (i.e they have already happened).

chris_bass

smidsy wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

This thread is a complete stats fail.

Anyone suggesting that the actual numbers of cyclists who wear helmets is not important are so wrong I have no possibly way of making them right. Without the stats for overall helmet use amongst the same population, the stats in the OP are completely and utterly irrelevant. They are completely devoid of all usefulness. They may as well be deleted and removed from record completely.

As I said in the dual carriageway thread, people are confusing statistics with probability.

Probability is used to predict the likelihood of outcomes (i.e they have not yet happened).

Statistics are used to quantify the outcomes (i.e they have already happened).

so how do you work out probablility then? assuming you arent going to look back at what has happened?

probability for say winning the lottery is different because there are a finite number of possibilities and only one outcome each time so its just one over all the possibilities.

probability for random events, such as deaths while cycling, has to look at what has happened previously. so if there were 100 deaths out of 100,000 then the probability would be estimated at 0.1% if all factors were equal. but of course all factors are not equal which is why these statistics are meaningless and cannot be used for anything substantial.

All factors must be taken into account:
weather
age
type of roads
gender
time of day
etc etc

smidsy

What you describe there Chris is 'Odds'.

A bookmaker sets the 'Odds' of a horse winning.

If there are 8 horses in the race the probability of horse 'A' winning is 1 in 8 (same as all of them). However from 'statistics' he knows that horse 'A' has won on this length of course in the given weather etc. more that the others. This is horse 'A's form.

When he says the favourite has odds of 3 to 1 he is making a calculation based on statistics and form, not probabilty.

navrig

Chris Bass wrote:

probability for random events, such as deaths while cycling, has to look at what has happened previously. so if there were 100 deaths out of 100,000 then the probability would be estimated at 0.1% if all factors were equal. but of course all factors are not equal which is why these statistics are meaningless and cannot be used for anything substantial.

All factors must be taken into account:
weather
age
type of roads
gender
time of day
etc etc

I don't disagree with your logic but perhaps with terminology. The death while cycling may not be random and that is the point. There will be a pattern to the probability of death caused by an accident whilst cycling. The "random" event bit is the accident itself and even then statistics will be able to give some sort of order to the likely cause of accidents, they wont be random per se.

The challenge is collecting enough relevant data to do an analysis which is worthwhile and reliable.

Alternatively and, in this case, everyone accepts that wearing a helmet is more likely to help you avoid injury than cause injury if you happen to be involved in an accident.

chris_bass

yeah the random element was the accident itself.

but the death after the accident has way too many factors to be just a helmet/no helmet split.

I always wear a helmet, even if it just stops me getting a bit of a headache from when i have clipless moments which happens from time to time thats good enough for me, takes 2 seconds to put on, i look pretty silly anyway so thats not a concern, i dont seem to suffer from getting an excessively sweaty head as a result, so for me the pros far outway the cons. for others however, this may not be the case.

each to his own is surely the best solution to the never ending helmet debate?!

Ben6899

Listen.

If you want to wear a helmet; wear one.

If you don't want to wear a helmet; don't wear one.

Whichever is your preference, how about keeping that to yourself? Eh?

navrig

Ben6899 wrote:

Listen.

If you want to wear a helmet; wear one.

If you don't want to wear a helmet; don't wear one.

Whichever is your preference, how about keeping that to yourself? Eh?

No, You Listen.

Just think, if everyone kept their thoughts and opinions to themselves we wouldn't have Bike Radar. 8)

Daz555

Ben6899 wrote:

Listen.

If you want to wear a helmet; wear one.

If you don't want to wear a helmet; don't wear one.

Whichever is your preference, how about keeping that to yourself? Eh?

Such sensible comment is not welcome here. Move along.