Some safety tips from Boardman

veronese68

Tiglath wrote:

1. There are only two kinds of bikers: the ones who will fall and the ones who have fallen and will fall again.

That makes as much sense as the rest of your arguments, none. The second group are a subset of the first, but you probably can't see that either. :roll:

craigus89

Tiglath, it's clear that your views on this subject have been skewed by your experience, and most of your responses in this thread seem to be driven by the emotion you still feel.

I've had a couple of head injuuries in my time, playing rugby I collided with another player, both of us head first, both of us running full pelt so a collision of what, 25-30mph. Both knocked out cold and I was concussed for a couple of days. I'm not dead or brain damaged. By your logic, then, I should be arguing that anybody could do the same thing over and over and never have any serious injuries. That clearly wouldn't be the case, and I was somewhat lucky to have come away relatively unscathed.

Plenty of people will have had similar anecdotal experiences, but claiming that they somehow provide firm evidence about head injuries one way or another would be ridiculous and would be like me claiming that the only reason I am alive is because the other player had an afro.

And why some road cyclists seem to have convinced themselves that falling is an occurence which is unavoidable is as stupid as the rest of this thread.

vs

Tiglath wrote:

"Your risk of brain injury in an accident is higher when you are wearing a helmet."

Mikael Colville-Andersen

I was provided earlier on with this quote and I think it deserves its own post.

I am not a medical doctor but like other people here I was issued a 101 brain at birth.

So using our little brains, let us see if we can answer the question "Why"

What is the train of thought we can follow that will lead to discover enough premises that point to the inescapable conclusion of that statement.

This:

Injuries to the head may be divided into direct, or focal, injuries and rotational, or diffuse, injuries.

Direct injuries occur as a result of linear acceleration of the skull by impact with another object, and typically lead to cuts, lacerations and concussion. Direct injuries, though sometimes painful, usually have minimal long-term effect.

Rotational injuries, on the other hand, do not necessarily involve direct contact with the head but result in the brain moving relative to the skull as a result of angular or rotational acceleration, which leads to diffuse axonal injury (DAI) and subdural haematoma (SDH). These are the most common ways that road crashes cause death or chronic intellectual disablement.

Cycle helmets may produce benefit by reducing and spreading the forces that lead to direct injuries. However, they are not designed to mitigate rotational injuries, and research has not shown them to be effective in doing so.

To the contrary, some researchers have expressed concern that cycle helmets might make some injuries worse by converting direct forces into rotational ones. These injuries will normally form a very small proportion of the injuries suffered by cyclists, but they are likely to form a large proportion of the injuries with serious long-term consequences. In this way cycle helmets may be harmful in a crash, but this harm may not be detected by small-scale research studies.

Source: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html

mpatts

morstar wrote:

mpatts wrote:

Bozman wrote:

Some folk being a little pedantic here.

You can't be a little pedantic.

That's brilliant!

I thank you

Sleeper Cell

Sleeper Cell wrote:

Sleeper Cell wrote:

There is no debate. The final answer was that while riding with a helmet may reduce the chances of and severity of a head injury in some circumstances, it can't protect riders in all situations from all injuries caused either by themselves or other road users. While some people quote some stats, other people quote others, each not actually proving their point but the increasing vitriol in successive posts eventually leads to the thread being locked.

Riders should wear helmets if they want to, and shouldn't if they don't want to. However, riders that choose to not wear a helmet are forever banned from trying to get sympathy for injuries received while not wearing safety equipment designed to mitigate the risk. Anybody complaining about such an injury is like a whining child that fails to see the link between their actions and the consequences.

bendertherobot

I assume you mean head injuries?

bobmcstuff

This thread is even worse than the helmet threads on ski forums... I thought they were bad.

Sleeper Cell

bendertherobot wrote:

I assume you mean head injuries?

Pedant. As a helmet is designed to protect the head it's implicit that the injuries are to the head, but the policy can be applied to gloves, glasses etc and the injuried are then linked to the safety equipment. Wear what you like, ride how you like, but if you get injured STFU about it.

bendertherobot

Sleeper Cell wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

I assume you mean head injuries?

Pedant. As a helmet is designed to protect the head it's implicit that the injuries are to the head, but the policy can be applied to gloves, glasses etc and the injuried are then linked to the safety equipment. Wear what you like, ride how you like, but if you get injured STFU about it.

Cricket box?

Sleeper Cell

bendertherobot wrote:

Cricket box?

Not as good as a helmet, but if you can get it on your head it might offer some protection.

ballysmate

Sleeper Cell wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Cricket box?

Not as good as a helmet, but if you can get it on your head it might offer some protection.

Bender, have you just been called a dickhead?
Don't stand for that.
Fight! Fight!

bendertherobot

Ballysmate wrote:

Sleeper Cell wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Cricket box?

Not as good as a helmet, but if you can get it on your head it might offer some protection.

Bender, have you just been called a dickhead?
Don't stand for that.
Fight! Fight!

One might think I started it with my cock reference! :twisted:

(Not really)

Besides, my helmet is massive.

Tiglath

Veronese68 wrote:

Tiglath wrote:

1. There are only two kinds of bikers: the ones who will fall and the ones who have fallen and will fall again.

That makes as much sense as the rest of your arguments, none. The second group are a subset of the first, but you probably can't see that either. :roll:

It's mostly sad but also hilarious when people make glaring mistakes when correcting or putting others down, as you are doing.

The second group can never be a subset of the first because a subset by definition is a set of which all the elements are contained in another set. The set of all bikers who have already fallen and will fall again, can never be part of the set of biker who have never fallen yet.

Learn the difference and roll eyes at yourself; you deserve it.

veronese68

Tiglath wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Tiglath wrote:

1. There are only two kinds of bikers: the ones who will fall and the ones who have fallen and will fall again.

That makes as much sense as the rest of your arguments, none. The second group are a subset of the first, but you probably can't see that either. :roll:

It's mostly sad but also hilarious when people make glaring mistakes when correcting or putting others down, as you are doing.

The second group can never be a subset of the first because a subset by definition is a set of which all the elements are contained in another set. The set of all bikers who have already fallen and will fall again, can never be part of the set of biker who have never fallen yet.

Learn the difference and roll eyes at yourself; you deserve it.

But for the fact that you didn't say the first group haven't fallen yet. So again, according to you, you have all of those who will fall in the future as the first group. Then you have a subset that have fallen in the past, yet will fall again. Do you understand now? I suspect not. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

chris_bass

Veronese68 wrote:

Tiglath wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Tiglath wrote:

1. There are only two kinds of bikers: the ones who will fall and the ones who have fallen and will fall again.

That makes as much sense as the rest of your arguments, none. The second group are a subset of the first, but you probably can't see that either. :roll:

It's mostly sad but also hilarious when people make glaring mistakes when correcting or putting others down, as you are doing.

The second group can never be a subset of the first because a subset by definition is a set of which all the elements are contained in another set. The set of all bikers who have already fallen and will fall again, can never be part of the set of biker who have never fallen yet.

Learn the difference and roll eyes at yourself; you deserve it.

But for the fact that you didn't say the first group haven't fallen yet. So again, according to you, you have all of those who will fall in the future as the first group. Then you have a subset that have fallen in the past, yet will fall again. Do you understand now? I suspect not. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

as a mathematics graduate this pleases me, definitions, sets and subsets are much more worthwhile debating than the stupid helmet vs no helmet thing.

fun fact - did you know a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't necessarily a square!

veronese68

Chris Bass wrote:

as a mathematics graduate this pleases me, definitions, sets and subsets are much more worthwhile debating than the stupid helmet vs no helmet thing.

fun fact - did you know a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't necessarily a square!

I knew that.
The other great ones come from the different averages, is that mean, median or mode?

florerider

Just add em up and divide by 3 and you have a pretty average average.

mpatts

Did you know that almost 50% of people are below average intelligence?

veronese68

florerider wrote:

Just add em up and divide by 3 and you have a pretty average average.

Wouldn't that be a pretty mean average average?

craigus89

99.2% of all statistics quoted to make a point are made up on the spot.

veronese68

joe2008 wrote:

This makes a lot of sense.

It does, unfortunately people don't want to hear sense because they think their personal experience tells them otherwise and the discussion has become emotional.

simon_masterson

Tiglath wrote:

CiB wrote:

You lot make me laugh these days, arguing the toss about 14% increased chance of this and 8-9cm more of that and doing x will reduce or increase the likelihood of y if there's a B in the month.

Boardman made the point that cycling is actually v safe and that there are plenty of other things that could improve the safety of cyclists, rather than pretending that a plastic hat solves everything from being blown into a ditch by a passing lorry to riding into an unlit skip when drunk. FWIW I agree with him, and unlike most other posters who've added to the gayety of this particular discussion I'm not going to close by saying I usually wear one anyway. Those that do claim that, are paying lip service to the argument that cycling is safe but are then hedging their bets.

Said it before but occasionally falling off various bikes in various ways over the last 40+ years with no appreciable head damage and now riding in a mainly rural setting leaves me happy to ride without. Cycling is safe in my world; it might not be for you poor saps who have to take on London traffic on a regular basis, but your view of the world differs from mine. Wear your hats with pride. My evidence is that cycling is safe and where I ride there are no kerbs to hit and not much traffic most of the time. I'll keep on coping fine without, and leave the silly stats arguments to you lot.

Your head, your way. It is refreshing that you don't tell others what to do.

Damn the studies; you only need to know two things to decide.

1. There are only two kinds of bikers: the ones who will fall and the ones who have fallen and will fall again.

2. When falling from a bike the chances of hitting your head are not negligible.

Do you have any evidence relating to the number of cycling related head injuries that actually occur?

Sleeper Cell

Simon Masterson wrote:

Do you have any evidence relating to the number of cycling related head injuries that actually occur?

According to ROSPA, 19,438 in 2013 of which 3250 resulted in death or serious injury

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advicea ... gures.aspx

"Head injuries, ranging from fatal skull fractures and brain damage to minor concussion and cuts, are very common injuries to cyclists. Hospital data shows that over 40% of cyclists, and 45% of child cyclists, suffer head injuries. A study of 116 fatal cyclist accidents in London and rural areas found over 70% of the cyclist fatalities in London had moderate or serious head injuries in London, and over 80% of those killed in collisions on rural roads. "

http://www.smf.org/docs/articles/report

"Major findings include:
• Helmets decreased the risk of head injury by 69 percent, brain injury by 65 percent, and severe brain injury by 74 percent. These results, using emergency room controls, are the same as the results obtained in our 1989 study. Had it been possible to use population controls in the current study, the overall protectiveness rate of 85 percent for head injury and 88 percent for brain injury reported in our prior work would in all likelihood have been obtained.
• Helmets work equally well in all age groups examined. There is no evidence supporting the need for a separate standard for young children.
• Helmets were equally effective in protecting cyclists in crashes involving motor vehicles and those not involving motor vehicles.
• Helmets provide substantial protection against lacerations and fractures to the upper- and mid- face, but appear to offer little protection to the lower face.
• Involvement in a motor-vehicle crash was the most important risk factor for serious injury.
• Hard-shell, thin-shell and no-shell helmets had similar protective qualities. Hard-shell helmets, however, may offer greater protection against severe brain injury.
• The major site of helmet damage was to the rim in the frontal region."

https://www.headway.org.uk/key-facts-an ... stics.aspx
"A Cochrane review considering five case-control studies from the UK, Australia and the USA illustrates a large and consistent protective effect from cycle helmets, reducing the risk of brain injury by up to 88% and injury to the upper and mid face by 65% (Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists, Thompson et al.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000)"

and

"After introducing a helmet law for children under 14, the US state of New Jersey reported that bicycle-related fatalities for that group fell by 60%. For riders over 14, who were not required to wear helmets, the reduction was a mere 5% in the same period. (Trends in Pediatric and Adult Bicycling Deaths Before and After Passage of a Bicycle Helmet Law, Wessen et al)"

simon_masterson

Sleeper Cell wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

Do you have any evidence relating to the number of cycling related head injuries that actually occur?

According to ROSPA, 19,438 in 2013 of which 3250 resulted in death or serious injury

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advicea ... gures.aspx

"Head injuries, ranging from fatal skull fractures and brain damage to minor concussion and cuts, are very common injuries to cyclists. Hospital data shows that over 40% of cyclists, and 45% of child cyclists, suffer head injuries. A study of 116 fatal cyclist accidents in London and rural areas found over 70% of the cyclist fatalities in London had moderate or serious head injuries in London, and over 80% of those killed in collisions on rural roads. "

http://www.smf.org/docs/articles/report

"Major findings include:
• Helmets decreased the risk of head injury by 69 percent, brain injury by 65 percent, and severe brain injury by 74 percent. These results, using emergency room controls, are the same as the results obtained in our 1989 study. Had it been possible to use population controls in the current study, the overall protectiveness rate of 85 percent for head injury and 88 percent for brain injury reported in our prior work would in all likelihood have been obtained.
• Helmets work equally well in all age groups examined. There is no evidence supporting the need for a separate standard for young children.
• Helmets were equally effective in protecting cyclists in crashes involving motor vehicles and those not involving motor vehicles.
• Helmets provide substantial protection against lacerations and fractures to the upper- and mid- face, but appear to offer little protection to the lower face.
• Involvement in a motor-vehicle crash was the most important risk factor for serious injury.
• Hard-shell, thin-shell and no-shell helmets had similar protective qualities. Hard-shell helmets, however, may offer greater protection against severe brain injury.
• The major site of helmet damage was to the rim in the frontal region."

https://www.headway.org.uk/key-facts-an ... stics.aspx
"A Cochrane review considering five case-control studies from the UK, Australia and the USA illustrates a large and consistent protective effect from cycle helmets, reducing the risk of brain injury by up to 88% and injury to the upper and mid face by 65% (Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists, Thompson et al.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000)"

and

"After introducing a helmet law for children under 14, the US state of New Jersey reported that bicycle-related fatalities for that group fell by 60%. For riders over 14, who were not required to wear helmets, the reduction was a mere 5% in the same period. (Trends in Pediatric and Adult Bicycling Deaths Before and After Passage of a Bicycle Helmet Law, Wessen et al)"

So essentially, not many people injure their heads when cycling, the vast majority of the sample probably only grazed their foreheads, and the study only covers those that went to hospital? Even so, 3250 is a very low number.

Pross

Tiglath wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Tiglath wrote:

Proof? Why is proof necessary to believe an inductive proposition? Proofs belong to mathematics when things required rigor and exactitude. Most things in life require no proof to persuade, high likelihood suffices much of the time.

And I can tell you that if, god forbid, you end up propelled through the air by a 3000 lb car travelling at 40 mph hitting you, and you impact your head against something hard, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that you will die or suffer serious head injuries.

You seem to require absolute certainty, instead of high probability, before you are willing to believe me. All I can say is that you would do well to drop that requirement.

And no, the casualty does not have the same insight as the by-stander, because knowledge by experience is not equal to knowledge by observation. Could you 'know' what kissing was like by seeing lovers kiss, or did your knowledge on the matter lose the quotes when you actually tried it?

Out of interest, when this 3000 lb car hit you at 40 mph propelling you over such a long distance, what were your other injuries?

Dislocated shoulder, broken humerus, crushed leg, severe lacerations on legs chest and back. Two nails keep my shoulder together. I already mentioned face scarring, and cuts to the scalp. Not to mention a whole year without riding.

But 'brain injury' or 'death' are not on the list, and the SOLE reason is the helmet I was wearing.

Why that simple fact seems disputable to some, I'll never know. It's not rocket science.

What this tells me is you should wear a full suit made out of plastic coated EPS. By your rationale you would have then escaped with minor bruising and grazing. After all, head injuries aren't the only way to die.

Sleeper Cell

Simon Masterson wrote:

So essentially, not many people injure their heads when cycling....

Probably because a lot of cyclists wear helmets.

Simon Masterson wrote:

...the vast majority of the sample probably only grazed their foreheads, and the study only covers those that went to hospital? Even so, 3250 is a very low number.

I don't think that 3250 deaths and serious injuries in a year is a very low number. Especially when it could (and should) be lower.

Sleeper Cell

joe2008 wrote:

I think if you compared that to the number of fatal head injuries sustained in car accidents we would conclude that we should all be wearing helmets every time we drive.

is the usual hyperbolic tosh that gets trotted out every time this 'debate' starts. Usually people say pedestrians should have to wear helmets, so well done for originality.

Tiglath

Veronese68 wrote:

Tiglath wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Tiglath wrote:

1. There are only two kinds of bikers: the ones who will fall and the ones who have fallen and will fall again.

That makes as much sense as the rest of your arguments, none. The second group are a subset of the first, but you probably can't see that either. :roll:

It's mostly sad but also hilarious when people make glaring mistakes when correcting or putting others down, as you are doing.

The second group can never be a subset of the first because a subset by definition is a set of which all the elements are contained in another set. The set of all bikers who have already fallen and will fall again, can never be part of the set of biker who have never fallen yet.

Learn the difference and roll eyes at yourself; you deserve it.

But for the fact that you didn't say the first group haven't fallen yet. So again, according to you, you have all of those who will fall in the future as the first group. Then you have a subset that have fallen in the past, yet will fall again. Do you understand now? I suspect not. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

You must be one of these fellows who after he digs a hole for himself is most happy to dig himself some more into a dark, dank hole, despite patient correction.

Is English your first language? Because if it is I may have an impossible mission. Do you understand explicit versus implicit?

My words were these: There are only two kinds of bikers: the ones who will fall and the ones who have fallen and will fall again.

Do you see TWO kinds there?

If the the first kind were bikers who will fall and have already fallen before, it would be indistinguishable from the second kind. And that would make it only ONE kind.

You need to read, parse, and inwardly digest what people write, instead of what it is more convenient for you to think they wrote.

Tiglath

joe2008 wrote:

Agree, I have 50 plus years of road cycling, plus my childhood cycling, so I guess we have 100 years between us. I have never worn a helmet. I have taken quite a few tumbles in that time, I have never once sustained a head injury of any note.

Day in and day out the chicken welcomes the hand that feeds him, but one day the same hand wrings its neck.

Past experience certainly helps in making guesses about the future. It's better than nothing, but trusting any past trend excessibly brings the worse surprises. Ask the chicken.

Sleeper Cell

Tiglath wrote:

...excessibly brings the worse surprises.

Is English your first language?