helmets

DeVlaeminck

Rick Chasey wrote:

airbag wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

There should be a helmet law – if you don’t wear a helmet you should legally have to fill out a Donor Card.

F**k you. I would post a reasoned argument elaborating, but you haven't, so why should I?

The reason people hates these threads is because of people like you. If you're not going to post a well-reasoned argument, the sort of thing that at least acknowledges other people disagreeing and explains, properly, why those disagreements are false, don't bother posting anything.

All you're doing is being annoying, since anyone who doesn't agree with you has to spend a lot more time than you did responding or let it be implied that there is no response, when there is. I bothered arguing with people like you in a civilised way, once, but after the thousandth time I just can't be bothered anymore.

And you're saying f*ck you to people, so who is worse?

Imo TheGreatDivide

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

airbag wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

There should be a helmet law – if you don’t wear a helmet you should legally have to fill out a Donor Card.

F**k you. I would post a reasoned argument elaborating, but you haven't, so why should I?

The reason people hates these threads is because of people like you. If you're not going to post a well-reasoned argument, the sort of thing that at least acknowledges other people disagreeing and explains, properly, why those disagreements are false, don't bother posting anything.

All you're doing is being annoying, since anyone who doesn't agree with you has to spend a lot more time than you did responding or let it be implied that there is no response, when there is. I bothered arguing with people like you in a civilised way, once, but after the thousandth time I just can't be bothered anymore.

And you're saying f*ck you to people, so who is worse?

Imo TheGreatDivide

Keep up.

DeVlaeminck

I was disagreeing with you.

Daz555

I have spoken to some of my skier and boarder mates about Schumacher. Interestingly none of them give a toss if he was wearing a helmet or not.

If only cyclists would do the same they might be able to use the time on something important - like perhaps focusing on the number of lorries on our urban roads, poor cycle lanes, dangerous junctions etc. You know the stuff where there is NO DOUBT about the benefits.

ballysmate

Daz555 wrote:

I have spoken to some of my skier and boarder mates about Schumacher. Interestingly none of them give a toss if he was wearing a helmet or not.

If only cyclists would do the same they might be able to use the time on something important - like perhaps focusing on the number of lorries on our urban roads, poor cycle lanes, dangerous junctions etc. You know the stuff where there is NO DOUBT about the benefits.

I don't give a toss either. Neither do I give a toss if any other cyclists wear helmets.
I just worry about what I do, everyone else can make their own choices.
Simples.

davmaggs

Stick8267 wrote:

This lies at the core of a real problem in medicine. While a lot of beneficial health interventions have little effect on a population level injuries and diseases happen to individuals. So if something only saves one life in 100 000 there is no justification in spending on it or making it compulsory. However, if you are the one then the success rate was 100% and not 0.001%. This is why a drug like Herceptin for breast cancer wasn't approved but caused so much anguish amongst patients and relatives.

You appear to be edging on arguing against the use of evidence.

Statistics can of course be misused, but the idea that something should be judged as 100% effective if it works for a single person is nonsense. Crystals or magic beans would more than likely have the same percentage rate of success if we switched medical purchasing to your method. Some drugs get hyped up by tabloid newspapers relying on anecdotes and industry press releases, and is only studies and statistics that allows the NHS to prioritise rather than responding to the mob.

The reason the helmet debate is so hard is because we can't use control groups to experiment on (although teaching primates to cycle could be interesting), and because there's too many variables when it comes to the mishaps people have and how those are recorded. That means debates comes down to more subjective statements (even from those with some medical qualifications), which gives each side a chance to dispute every claim made by the other side.

VTech

Can I ask a simple question.

How many people have died in an accident on a bike due to the fact they were wearing a helmet ?
There must have been loads I guess. ?

desweller

I don't know, VTech, but it's certainly a question worth asking. I have a question along similar lines; how many people have died in an accident on a bike due to the fact they were wearing body armour?

pdstsp

VTech wrote:

Can I ask a simple question.

How many people have died in an accident on a bike due to the fact they were wearing a helmet ?
There must have been loads I guess. ?

So you are basing your pro cycling helmet argument on a person being injured in a skiing accident. Not sure how scientific that is. As many have said there are many studies on the use of cycle helmets and, as far as I know, the (scientific) jury's still out. There are also many anecdotal tales that the helmet helped avoid serious injury or death. For my own reasons I do wear a cycle helmet but I don't wear a ski helmet. However I wouldn't dream of judging anyone by their choices, nor would I suggest that they lack sense.

VTech

pdstsp wrote:

VTech wrote:

Can I ask a simple question.

How many people have died in an accident on a bike due to the fact they were wearing a helmet ?
There must have been loads I guess. ?

So you are basing your pro cycling helmet argument on a person being injured in a skiing accident. Not sure how scientific that is. As many have said there are many studies on the use of cycle helmets and, as far as I know, the (scientific) jury's still out. There are also many anecdotal tales that the helmet helped avoid serious injury or death. For my own reasons I do wear a cycle helmet but I don't wear a ski helmet. However I wouldn't dream of judging anyone by their choices, nor would I suggest that they lack sense.

Actually im not decided either way in a factual way. I work in the motorsport industry so have seen many people saved through wearing these safety devices, I don't think that its a coincidence that since high level safety was forced in motorsport, deaths have decreased massively.

Reality "suggests" that the helmet helps more on low level impact, im not sure how much a helmet on a bike will help you on a fall into a wall at 40mph ?
The reason I wear one is because I have a wife and kids who would think less of me if I died needlessly when I could of done something very simply to avoid it. If the worse happened and I was wearing one then no one is harmed either way.

pdstsp

Indeed and I agree - my reasons for wearing one are rather similar. However up thread you talked of people lacking sense who don't wear one and I am not sure the evidence bears this out.

Also - surely in the motorsport industry the safety measures taken have been far more sophisticated than merely improving helmets?

I actually make a point of trying not to get involved in the helmet discussions here but on this occasion found the linking of a skier hitting his head wearing one type of helmet with ending the debate on the use of cycle helmets to be so daft that I jumped in. And now I regret it :oops:

Anyway last time I had an off was a clipless moment leaving my drive and I ended up in a privet hedge with a twig through one of the vents of my helmet scratching my face - proof positive that helmets do not protect you from low speed injury.

mfin

Do motorbike helmets improve safety for motorcyclists?

Mikey23

@pdstsp... You obviously didn't read your helmet manual...

GiantMike

pdstsp wrote:

Anyway last time I had an off was a clipless moment leaving my drive and I ended up in a privet hedge with a twig through one of the vents of my helmet scratching my face - proof positive that helmets do not protect you from low speed injury.

Brilliant

Daz555

mfin wrote:

Do motorbike helmets improve safety for motorcyclists?

Yes they do.

I'm a motorcyclist and it's hardly surprising mc lids help a lot - they feel like you are wearing a tank on your head. They feel so good they actually make you feel much much safer than you actually are - add a full race suit and some ear plugs to knock down the wind noise and you can barrel along at 100+mph whilst feeling as safe as you do whilst sat in front of the TV.

But yes mc lids work - and the weight of evidence supporting this is unequivocal . In addition when the legislation was introduced there was the added benefit that legislators knew that it would cut back on the number of motorcylists as a number would quit riding rather than wear a lid.

When we play this scenario against cycling then everything changes. There is not a mountain of evidence about how much addtional benefit is provided with cycle helmets and when you factor in the chances of the potential of fewer cyclists as a result of legislation things get even more complicated. We need more cylists, not fewer, and talk of helmets does nothing to get more people out on two wheels. Helmet talk also detracts from more critical issues like lorries, cycle lanes and the design of junctions.

VTech

@Daz555, good reply. I was wondering, do you guys think that a certain amount of unequal info is around due to the fact that so many bike accidents end up with scratched and bashed bikes because people wear a helmet and don't die or get serious head injury ?
My point is, if no one wore a helmet, lets say they hadn't been invented, would there be more injuries yearly ? I guess to me, thats the significant point of this and threads like these.

Daz555

VTech wrote:

My point is, if no one wore a helmet, lets say they hadn't been invented, would there be more injuries yearly ? I guess to me, thats the significant point of this and threads like these.

I don't think anyone has enough data to answer your question.

The other question that matters to me is "what is the overall impact of compulsory helmet legislation" which is something plenty of people want - I'm not one of them however.

thegreatdivide

Caught a bloke riding down the road last night with no lights, no helmet and headphones on - the temptation to shout 'DONOR' was almost overwhelming.

vs

Daz555 wrote:

The other question that matters to me is "what is the overall impact of compulsory helmet legislation"

This I guess: http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/aus ... w-disaster

DeVlaeminck

thegreatdivide wrote:

Caught a bloke riding down the road last night with no lights, no helmet and headphones on - the temptation to shout 'DONOR' was almost overwhelming.

He wouldn't have heard you.

bikes`n`guns

I wear mine 80% off the time.
Started wearing it because the pro`s did, so now I look cool wearing a helmet.

The times I don`t wear it are when I`m wearing my Giro cap, so that I look cool.


All this donor crap is just that though, crap. Personal choice should be the only reason to wear a lid.