SPAM random annoying things

[Tom]

The obvious answer to that is more people walk down stairs than ride bikes.

So what. People still die falling down the stairs. Therefore, people should wear a helmet to reduce their risk of dying when falling down the stairs.

 

[DaGaffer]

Can you present any evidence for that or is that just a gut feeling?

Have a careful look at this page.

If you look at the image after studying the figures in the graph you'll see that the risk of dying from various activities - including falls - isn't necessarily what you may think.

Walking down the stairs may well be more dangerous than cycling - and there's certainly not much difference between the risks of dying from cycling and football and sky diving (!).


My point is (other than the above being simply interesting) - gut feelings are a shit tool for assessing risk.

That table is absolute bullshit. Look at the population column. Makes no sense.

 

[caLLous]

Should they wear a helmet when eating as well?

 

[Scouse]

That table is absolute bullshit. Look at the population column. Makes no sense.

I presume that the population column is an estimate of a number of active participants in the designated sport - and they do give their sources...

 

[fettoken]

Should they wear a helmet when eating as well?

Well, you could argue that wearing a helmet at all times would be to prefer. Esp when going on a night out, IF your goal is not to get laid that is.

 

[DaGaffer]

I presume that the population column is an estimate of a number of active participants in the designated sport - and they do give their sources...

So the active participant rate for half a dozen different sports in say, Germany, is exactly the same? I think not.

 

[Scouse]

I think not.

Fine. I think they're rough estimates but I've no reason to argue with you - I'm not precious over their estimates as I didn't produce them myself or say they should be taken as gospel.

What I did say was:

If you want an effective approach to debating harm, risk, healthcare, long-term outcomes you've got to ditch the type of arguing methods we have on this forum, which are based on gut feeling, and start to examine the evidence.

So rather than just say "it's shit" and "I think not" why not provide an alternative evidence base for us to discuss? Otherwise I'll just disregard your argument as "not actually an argument" and carry on feeling my rightness in the absence of other evidence to disuade me of my current notions





Edit: Just to be sporting I've started looking for other datasets and find that the bandolier stuff (which is a condensation of others) is being referenced a fair bit by what at face value appear reputable sources...

 

[DaGaffer]

Fine. I think they're rough estimates but I've no reason to argue with you - I'm not precious over their estimates as I didn't produce them myself or say they should be taken as gospel.

What I did say was:


So rather than just say "it's shit" and "I think not" why not provide an alternative evidence base for us to discuss? Otherwise I'll just disregard your argument as "not actually an argument" and carry on feeling my rightness in the absence of other evidence to disuade me of my current notions

There's nothing wrong with evidence based reasoning, but the key word is "evidence". If the figures used are so generalised as to be meaningless, they don't tell you anything useful.

This is why I took issue with Tom's post because it was trying to make a point using a information that didn't make sense, and I didn't need the actual numbers to tell me that (I did go and have a look, and yes more people are hurt falling down stairs than cycling, in absolute terms) a millisecond of common sense thinking tells you why.

You can also infer things just through some application of logic; a helmet won't save you from a truck, but it will save you from clattering your head off a kerb, and the opportunity cost of wearing a helmet (you don't have the wind in your hair and you may look like a knob) is less than the opportunity cost of not wearing one. There's actually a much more complex debate about motorcycle helmets because of the weight issue and neck injuries (which comes down to "would you prefer to be dead/brain damaged or a paraplegic?"), but there really isn't that much of an issue about bike helmets because they're light and non-intrusive.

The debate about having a false sense of security while wearing a helmet...dunno. If you do, you're an idiot, but then most cyclists I see in town seem to think they possess a personal force-field anyway, helmet or not.

 

[Scouse]

There's nothing wrong with evidence based reasoning, but the key word is "evidence". If the figures used are so generalised as to be meaningless, they don't tell you anything useful

In the example we're discussing it depends on how far out the numbers are - but considering the people who put them together there must be good reasons for it. Having said that - I still wouldn't take them as gospel - but would still like to see a better dataset.

However, I take issue with these points:

the opportunity cost of wearing a helmet (you don't have the wind in your hair and you may look like a knob) is less than the opportunity cost of not wearing one. ...but there really isn't that much of an issue about bike helmets because they're light and non-intrusive.

The debate about having a false sense of security while wearing a helmet...dunno. If you do, you're an idiot,

The evidence suggests you're wrong on these points. But the one I'd take you to task personally is that bike helmets are light and non-intrusive - they're fucking horrid to wear, hugely distracting and annoyingly debilitating - especially on hot days. I don't give a fuck about looking a knob but I do give a fuck about how much they impede me. I used to feel differently (before I cycled a lot) but I totally understand it now and would never wear one unless the possibility of falling off my bike is *much* higher than normal (i.e. flying down a mountain - I tend to take it off going uphill - even technical uphill - as I'm going very slowly and I perform much better without one).

But aside from this - helmet use over a population level is neutral on a safety level - and the data is clear that mandatory helmet use cuts participation rates - which in itself probably causes more harm to the population than getting mashed by lorries...

 

[Moriath]

In the example we're discussing it depends on how far out the numbers are - but considering the people who put them together there must be good reasons for it. Having said that - I still wouldn't take them as gospel - but would still like to see a better dataset.

However, I take issue with these points:



The evidence suggests you're wrong on these points. But the one I'd take you to task personally is that bike helmets are light and non-intrusive - they're fucking horrid to wear, hugely distracting and annoyingly debilitating - especially on hot days. I don't give a fuck about looking a knob but I do give a fuck about how much they impede me. I used to feel differently (before I cycled a lot) but I totally understand it now and would never wear one unless the possibility of falling off my bike is *much* higher than normal (i.e. flying down a mountain - I tend to take it off going uphill - even technical uphill - as I'm going very slowly and I perform much better without one).

But aside from this - helmet use over a population level is neutral on a safety level - and the data is clear that mandatory helmet use cuts participation rates - which in itself probably causes more harm to the population than getting mashed by lorries...

But for those who hit their heads falling off in whatever circumstanse helmets arebeneficial. So as i said you are putting your trust in not having an accident which no one thinks they are going to have until it happens.

Riding up hill may reduce your chance of said fall. But falling and hitting your head on a rock or curb is still a possibility. And if that happens a helmet will help you.

Like i said two different arguments. You choose to discpunt the risk as low going up. But with speed put a helmet on going down. The risk is different both ways. But the same head injury would be reduced if a helmet was worn going up or down.

You fail to recognise that although the chance of a fall is less the impact of said fall could be the same.

 

[Moriath]

So what. People still die falling down the stairs. Therefore, people should wear a helmet to reduce their risk of dying when falling down the stairs.

No as i said its your choice.

 

[Moriath]

Should they wear a helmet when eating as well?

The chance of sustaining head injury while eating is substantially less than cycling and your point is moot.

 

[Moriath]

I dont care if you do or dont wear a helmet. But its obvious if you do and have a head related accident you are less likely to be severly impared.

The chances of having said injury depend on what you are doing.

 

[DaGaffer]

In the example we're discussing it depends on how far out the numbers are - but considering the people who put them together there must be good reasons for it. Having said that - I still wouldn't take them as gospel - but would still like to see a better dataset.

There are good reasons for it, its suits their thesis. Unfortunately that doesn't make them useful or true.

The evidence suggests you're wrong on these points. But the one I'd take you to task personally is that bike helmets are light and non-intrusive - they're fucking horrid to wear, hugely distracting and annoyingly debilitating - especially on hot days. I don't give a fuck about looking a knob but I do give a fuck about how much they impede me. I used to feel differently (before I cycled a lot) but I totally understand it now and would never wear one unless the possibility of falling off my bike is *much* higher than normal (i.e. flying down a mountain - I tend to take it off going uphill - even technical uphill - as I'm going very slowly and I perform much better without one).

Well no, the "evidence" doesn't suggest anything of the sort, because we don't seem to have any. So in the absence of evidence, apply common sense. As for the helmet comfort thing, meh, maybe you've got a funny shaped head, or maybe you need a better helmet. They just don't bother me, but then I'm coming off years of wearing a motorbike helmet, which is far more intrusive.

But aside from this - helmet use over a population level is neutral on a safety level - and the data is clear that mandatory helmet use cuts participation rates - which in itself probably causes more harm to the population than getting mashed by lorries...

That's a completely different argument that has no bearing on the direct safety benefit or otherwise of helmets. And even that you could argue two ways; it probably would impede some new adult riders coming to cycling, but parents are more likely to encourage cycling with their children if there are improved safety options, which would help improve participation over the long term.

 

[Scouse]

Disagree @DaGaffer - we do have evidence on the direct safety benefit or otherwise of helmets - and some of that evidence has been posted here. But aside from that this is the bit I'd like to pull you up on:

it probably would impede some new adult riders coming to cycling, but parents are more likely to encourage cycling with their children if there are improved safety options, which would help improve participation over the long term.

re-re-re-Repost!

(Participation levels/possible slowness of thinking caused by helmets/driver and cyclist behavioural stuff, yadda yadda yadda is all covered and the stuff expressed in there is backed by actual research)

Also, if we're to continue - will some people please provide some - any - evidence to support their opinions please? Currently I'm the only one who's bothering...

 

[Raven]

Maybe because its such a non-important discussion that nobody can be arsed with?

All someone did was post a picture of an awesome design (imo) that could have some really cool applications in other areas if developed.

 

[Scouse]

Maybe because its such a non-important discussion that nobody can be arsed with?

You Toht in disguise? That's immediately what came to mind - you didn't have to post that now, did you?

But to humour you - maybe it's because most can't be arsed to challenge their own opinions with evidence that they may be wrong?

My opinion on this is completely changeable through evidence because I'm not precious about the point I'm making. I really like to be empirically correct - but I don't mind what form that empirical correctness takes

 

[Scouse]

Actually @Raven - it was maybe a little low with the toht jibe. This sort of discussion was previously never possible with him around.

Sigh. Newfound *Good times* eh?

 

[Moriath]

@Scouse so you disagree that a helmet would be beneficial in the case of a head impact?

 

[soze]

But to humour you - maybe it's because most can't be arsed to challenge their own opinions with evidence that they may be wrong?

My opinion on this is completely changeable through evidence because I'm not precious about the point I'm making. I really like to be empirically correct - but I don't mind what form that empirical correctness takes

Until some one argues that it should be a legal requirement to wear a helmet I don't think there is anything for me to argue about. I wear one because I feel safer. It have nothing to do with any studies either way. When I fall I do not tend to be very good a protecting my head. I do not ride differently when I wear one but I do not ride to the extent of some of the proper cyclists on here. If I did maybe it would start to piss me off and I would lose it. I would never let my future kids ride anything without a helmet on but as far as other adults go they can do what they want.

 

[Scouse]

@Scouse so you disagree that a helmet would be beneficial in the case of a head impact?

You can clearly see that I've never said anything of the sort.

However, to humour you, helmets are proven not to beneficial in the case of all head impacts - and if they make it more likely you'll experience a head impact then are their limited beneficial properties worth the negative elements they bring to the equation?




Separately - why are you trying to cherry pick your argument rather than enter into the actual debate?

 

[Scouse]

Until some one argues that it should be a legal requirement to wear a helmet I don't think there is anything for me to argue about. I wear one because I feel safer.

Which is totally fair enough...

 

[Moriath]

You can clearly see that I've never said anything of the sort.

However, to humour you, helmets are proven not to beneficial in the case of all head impacts - and if they make it more likely you'll experience a head impact then are their limited beneficial properties worth the negative elements they bring to the equation?




Separately - why are you trying to cherry pick your argument rather than enter into the actual debate?

Im trying to seperate out the points in the original debate. Clarify one then the other.

 

[Scouse]

Im trying to seperate out the points in the original debate. Clarify one then the other.

That was never up for debate? Yes, for low-speed head impacts helmets can be beneficial. But I'll ask again: if helmets make it more likely you'll experience a head impact of any kind then are their limited beneficial properties worth the negative elements they bring to the equation?

Evidence please. Because this very clearly suggests that the negative side of helmets makes them not worth it.


Aside from that argument - I take a pragmatic approach. In particularly high-risk scenarios (i.e. downhilling) I wear a helmet***. In low risk scenarios (normal cycling (which is about as dangerous as being a pedestrian)) - I don't. I additionally minimise my risks of any serious injury by avoiding roads as much as possible - which is more effective than wearing a helmet.

The reason we're having this argument is because people's gut reaction is to say "always wearing a helmet is better" - when the evidence shows it isn't. So I'll have the best of both worlds please - only wearing helmets when they're likely to help more than hinder...




Edit: *** - not because they'll protect my brain - helmets are no use at all at high speeds because the problem is your jelly-like brain mashing itself on the inside of your skull (just like if a car hits you) and a helmet doesn't help with that. I wear one so I don't get cuts and scrapes and tear my scalp if I survive a bad fall - not because it's going to help massively with brain trauma...

 

[Ormorof]

A quick google also finds lots of studies that show that since those mandatory helmet laws were passed theres been a big reduction in cases of severe head injury among those that still cycle

Cycling to work may be low risk in your eyes but i havent seen anything that says wearing a helmet makes things worse when you do crash (i fail to see how you can isolate wearing a helmet as a cause of accidents scientifically tbh )

So not wearing helmet when crashing = bad

Wearing helmet when crashing = not worse and possibly better

Seems like a sinple choice for me

 

[Syri]

You Toht in disguise? That's immediately what came to mind - you didn't have to post that now, did you?

But to humour you - maybe it's because most can't be arsed to challenge their own opinions with evidence that they may be wrong?

My opinion on this is completely changeable through evidence because I'm not precious about the point I'm making. I really like to be empirically correct - but I don't mind what form that empirical correctness takes

Ironic... you're actually the one using the least accurate "evidence" and refusing to be moved from your "flexible position". There are multiple case studies and tests done to prove the benefits of a helmet, in the case of an accident that causes a head impact. There are no proven studies that wearing a helmet turns you into a twat who thinks they're invincible. Twats who think they're invincible will do so, helmet or not. Wearing one does not change anything in your brain, they don't turn you into a maniac. They just protect your head if you hit it.
It's up to the cyclist if they wear one or not, but if they do, it doesn't make them want to go taking stupid risks. If they take risks, they would anyway, helmet or not, it's the kind of person they are. Many people without helmets get into accidents and scrapes, many people with them get along just fine without having any problems.

 

[Scouse]

Evidence for your argument please @Ormorof - I've provided mine that refutes your position repeatedly and I'm not going to argue on here all day without it tbh.

Be prepared to have your sources critiqued tho. Don't bring up the daily fail.

There are multiple case studies and tests done to prove the benefits of a helmet, in the case of an accident that causes a head impact.

I'm not disuputing that (though only in low-speed crashes). In the case of low-speed impacts helmets can be beneficial. And if you're going to choose such a narrow range of argument you won't get any argument at all. That is correct.


But it's also not what we're arguing about. Come on people - is the actual nature of the argument that hard a concept to grasp?


Edit:

you're actually the one using the least accurate "evidence"

1) I've actually provided some - from scientific studies. Where's yours?
2) See 1.

 

[Ormorof]

Actually i guess it depends what you mean by low speed

The cyclists speed or the object hitting him? I cycle relatively slowly because im fat and lazy so any impact im involved in will be low speed

Anyhoo here is an article analysing impact of helmet law in oz:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000145759490006X

The number of insurance claims from bicyclists killed or admitted to hospital after sustaining a head injury decreased by 48% and 70% in the first and second years after the law, respectively. Analysis of the injury data also showed a 23% and 28% reduction in the number of bicyclists killed or admitted to hospital who did not sustain head injuries in the first and second post-law years, respectively. For Melbourne, where regular annual surveys of helmet wearing have been conducted, it was possible to fit a logistic regression model that related the reduction in head injuries to increased helmet wearing.

Article is now old but i found that within minutes of googling "bicycle helmet safety"



Edit: most of the articles acknowledge that it seems to have come together with a reduction in people cycling which likely has lead to a bigger problem in health than the head injuries were causing, but just because people dont cycle doesnt mean they cant/dont do other exercise instead but dead is dead

 

[Scouse]

Actually i guess it depends what you mean by low speed. The cyclists speed or the object hitting him?

I mean where the impact speed to the head is low.

If a car hits you I'm assuming it's likely to not really be a low speed accident if it turns out it's life threatening?

most of the articles acknowledge that it seems to have come together with a reduction in people cycling which likely has lead to a bigger problem in health than the head injuries were causing

This is more what I'm interested in. Cycling is hugely safe and where mandatory helmet laws have been introduced the harm caused by enforcing helmet use seems to outweigh the benefit to people of enforcing helmet use.

I don't want to textwall - so I've posted that again as it's relevant to the thing you posted and is based on a number of similar studies.


Considering cycling is a very safe activity anyway then enforced helmet use is, at best, a marginal benefit (it can only possibly help in a very narrow range of injuries - it's not going to stop your spleen bursting because a tyre's rolled over you) to a marginal problem - and enforced helmet use is likely to have negative outcomes overall.

Like I said - taking a pragmatic approach seems sensible. Minimise your risks regardless of whether you wear a helmet or not.

 

[Ormorof]

Well like i said there are other forms of exercise than cycling

If people chose not to cycle because they are forced to wear a helmet that is their choice we are adults after all

Im not advocating enforcing bike helmets on all im just pointing out that wearing a helmet does not hinder your ability to cycle safely unless you are already pre disposedto cycling unsafely (if all that is stopping you from overtaking a lorry at a junction is a small helmet then you are a bit of a twat to begin with )

And i agree with the article you posted, dont oversell safety equipment, its something that in a worst case scenario leaves you with cuts and bruises instead of a cracked skull not an invulnerability force shield

But im still going to wear mine because if i do go head over arse id rather it breaks than i break