Be prepared for an accident

[presta]

I stand by what I said.

None of those amount to any significant campaign.

And to compare against that, how many MPs can you find who are calling for helmet use to be made illegal?

if you wake up in hospital and find you were unlucky enough to have had just that kind of collision then the fact that you were statistically right to not wear it
won't be a lot of comfort

But what about the helmet wearer who wakes up in hospital to find they wouldn't have crashed in the first place if they hadn't been wearing it.

I notice that those flippin' doctors are at it again:

What is it about Neurosurgeons and their obsession with protecting people's heads? What do they know about the relationship of head injuries to wearing helmets? I've heard that it's the same as panel beaters not knowing anything about car crashes.

What do neurosurgeons know about the effect of a helmet on the probability of having a crash?

A simple question is asking people how they would ride on a busy roundabout without a helmet. The answer is usually....very carefully. The following point is that the helmet will unlikely help them in a collision with a heavy vehicle but they just admitted they ride less carefully wearing a helmet.

Sometimes when you ask someone how they would ride if you confiscated their helmet they'll tell you that they wouldn't ride at all, which proves the point in about as stark a form as you can get. (Although it's usually lost on them.)

one or two publicity seeking MPS putting forth Private Members Bills with no chance of success.

Farage and Trump had no chance of success up until the point when they did.

Other thing is that brain injuries are sometime not fatal - but could be said to be worse in some ways

I which case a helmet could be turning a fatal injury into a crippling one.

Why do you think that is? Are they all in the pay of big helmet? I think we should be told..

I already have told you, it's because they're ignoring the red area of the diagram I posted above. Considering that Prof Gerd Gigerenzer has shown that doctors are very unreliable when it comes to interpreting statistics, that's probably because it hasn't even occurred to them that it exists.

Here are a few findings from Gigerenzer's research into the ability (or inability) of doctors, and patients to correctly interpret medical statistics.

Firstly, the right and wrong way to communicate risk (note which one I used in the diagram above):

Here's the reliability data for HIV tests, along with the advice given to patients:

People with a 50% chance of being HIV positive were committing suicide because they were being told it's a dead cert.

Here are a few relevant quotes from the paper:

"the most difficult operation for the physicians was to convert 1 in 1,000 into a percentage: One out of four physicians got it wrong"

"Most psychological, legal, and medical articles on patient–doctor communication assume that the problem lies in the patient’s mind....but rarely is it considered that many doctors might be statistically illiterate"

"asked for advice on PSA screening.....Only 2 of the 20 urologists knew the relevant information and were able to an￾swer the patient’s questions....The majority...could not answer most of the patient’s questions"

"several physicians claimed to be innumerate and in their embarrassment felt compelled to hide this fact from patients"

"only 1 out of 21 obstetricians being able to estimate the probability of an unborn actually having Down syndrome given a positive test"

"The number of physicians who found the best answer, as documented in medical studies, was slightly less than chance (21%)"

Or alternatively, read Gigerenzer's book.

Mathematician Prof. Hannah Fry made a Horizon programme about just this subject not so long ago after she had cancer herself, because she was so concerned about the levels of statistical illiteracy and the consequences for people's health. One woman still insisted on having chemotherapy even after it was explained that it was virtually pointless though.

 

[MontyVeda]

Not really a valid point
Yes - I agree that it is likely that walkers - and especially car drivers - would also benefit from wearing a helmet - based on research I have seen

but if will help cyclists then that is a valid thing to do
and if pedestrians are more resistant then that is a different point and does not invalidate cyclist being encouraged to wear them

I believe it's absolutely a valid point.
You either have a passion for giving your noggin extra protection or not.

The activity makes no difference.

I also believe that wearing a cycle-style hat in the home would be wholly beneficial since most head injuries occur in the home, but I'm not going to argue that people start wearing one.

 

[classic33]

The best advice for preparing for an accident is wear a helmet. If a car hits you, and you take the driver to court, be sure you were wearing a helmet. If not the first thing the drivers lawyer will try to bring out is that since you were not wearing a helmet, you are partly to blame. That could also include wearing bright colored jersey, and having a flag on your bike or trike.

If you've time to think about what might happen after an accident, and then adjust how you approach what you're doing, it ceases to become an accident.

 

[I like Skol]

We should not brush our teeth!

A colleague of mine suffered a horrendous injury last summer. Was camping for the weekend and had been to do his morning chores and was walking back to his tent with his toothbrush in his mouth when he tripped and fell. Result was that he ended up with the toothbrush impaling his eye socket and popping the eyeball out onto his cheek!!!
Doctors managed to save the eye, although with impaired vision.

 

[icowden]

But what about the helmet wearer who wakes up in hospital to find they wouldn't have crashed in the first place if they hadn't been wearing it.

I'm finding it hard to envision a scenario where a helmet actually makes someone crash.

What do neurosurgeons know about the effect of a helmet on the probability of having a crash?

Nothing. They know quite a lot about what a head looks like afterwards though.

I which case a helmet could be turning a fatal injury into a crippling one.

So an improvement in outcome then.

I already have told you, it's because they're ignoring the red area of the diagram I posted above. Considering that Prof Gerd Gigerenzer has shown that doctors are very unreliable when it comes to interpreting statistics, that's probably because it hasn't even occurred to them that it exists.

Weirdly doctors are very good at medicine. Some doctors specialise in research and statistical analysis. Some researchers are statisticians and not doctors. Often different types of professional work together on reserach. But yes, if you walk into a hospital and ask a neurosurgeon to analyise some statistics they will probable give you the wrong answer.

Actually they'll probably tell you to bugger off because they are busy trying to put someone's head back together.

One interesting thing I learned is that Neurosurgeons are often most concerned with the patients that make an immediate, excellent recovery and are sitting up and chatting. They tend to be the ones that don't make it.

 

[presta]

I believe it's absolutely a valid point.
You either have a passion for giving your noggin extra protection or not.

The activity makes no difference.

I also believe that wearing a cycle-style hat in the home would be wholly beneficial since most head injuries occur in the home, but I'm not going to argue that people start wearing one.

I think what drives the desire for helmets is similar to that for cycle paths, people who perceive cycling to be dangerous want to do something to make themselves feel safer. It won't occur to most people that other more common activities are a greater risk because those seem 'normal' and 'everyday'. How many of those who tell you that you should be using a helmet are obese, or smokers, or drinkers?

 

[lazybloke]

I think what drives the desire for helmets is similar to that for cycle paths, people who perceive cycling to be dangerous want to do something to make themselves feel safer. It won't occur to most people that other more common activities are a greater risk because those seem 'normal' and 'everyday'. How many of those who tell you that you should be using a helmet are obese, or smokers, or drinkers?

View attachment 764695

What are 'low fruit' and what risks to they present? Are limbo dancers safer?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

We should not brush our teeth!

A colleague of mine suffered a horrendous injury last summer. Was camping for the weekend and had been to do his morning chores and was walking back to his tent with his toothbrush in his mouth when he tripped and fell. Result was that he ended up with the toothbrush impaling his eye socket and popping the eyeball out onto his cheek!!!
Doctors managed to save the eye, although with impaired vision.

Thanks for that. Just finished clearing up after retching on my keyboard.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I'm finding it hard to envision a scenario where a helmet actually makes someone crash.

Still bemused as to why people are so exercised by the whole issue, but on this point - risk compensation: when people take more risks because they feel safer.

So a cyclist eg takes more risk descending a steep hill with a helmet because they feel safer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

But really, it doesn't matter much. Cycling is safe, head injuries are rare, the proportion of those helmets can make a significant difference to is small. Wear one if you want (I did this morning) but it doesn't significantly change your risk of severe injury, illness or death.

However, merely being on your bike does by dint of physical and mental wellbeing. So my suggestion is to celebrate that if you want to improve your own and other's health outcomes!

 

[Profpointy]

Arms, legs and ribs can be fixed pretty easily. Brains not so much. I'd rather wear a helmet if it were going to prevent a brain injury, even if it was going to break my leg.


And those cases are not of interest when considering helmet protection either. You protect the most vulnerable and least repairable bit.
Brain injuries are not nice and are often fatal.

That does seem to "begging the question", in the traditional (and correct) sense of assuming that which you are trying to argue.

You rather seem to be suggesting we should wear a helmet because brain injuries are a serious matter. However, the question glossed over is whether wearing a cycling helmet significantly reduces the severity or incidence of brain injuries. From what I've read, there doesn't seem to be much in it, despite the "it's obvious innit?" argument.

 

[icowden]

I also believe that wearing a cycle-style hat in the home would be wholly beneficial since most head injuries occur in the home, but I'm not going to argue that people start wearing one.

For this statistic to work, you need to measure not only the number of head injuries per person that occur in the home but also the number of home "minutes" per injury and then do the same for cycling.

It's unsurprising that most head injuries occur in the home - we spend a lot of time there. I'm often in the home for close to 24hrs a day. By comparison I am on a bike once a week for about 4 hours, a bit more in the summer if I cycle out for lunch.

Then we need to factor in movement and stability. At home I'm sat down or walking around, not travelling at 15mph on two wheels.

Most head injuries occur in the home isn't really that useful as a measure.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

We should not brush our teeth!

A colleague of mine suffered a horrendous injury last summer. Was camping for the weekend and had been to do his morning chores and was walking back to his tent with his toothbrush in his mouth when he tripped and fell. Result was that he ended up with the toothbrush impaling his eye socket and popping the eyeball out onto his cheek!!!
Doctors managed to save the eye, although with impaired vision.

But was he wearing a helmet and hi-vis????

 

[Andy in Germany]

Nothing. They know quite a lot about what a head looks like afterwards though.

Which tells us nothing about the effectiveness of helmets in an accident.

 

[Andy in Germany]

I think what drives the desire for helmets is similar to that for cycle paths, people who perceive cycling to be dangerous want to do something to make themselves feel safer. It won't occur to most people that other more common activities are a greater risk because those seem 'normal' and 'everyday'. How many of those who tell you that you should be using a helmet are obese, or smokers, or drinkers?

View attachment 764695

The graph is fascinating, especially bearing in mind what we are being told to be afraid of all the time by various vested interests. I can imagine previous generations would be astonished: being killed in a war the lowest danger, and on top of that the first seven are avoidable to some extent for most people.

I think what drives the desire for helmets is similar to that for cycle paths, people who perceive cycling to be dangerous want to do something to make themselves feel safer.

The difference of course is that we have real world evidence that when good cycle facilities are built, cycling increases and cycling related deaths decrease, along with several other risks on that list.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I'm finding it hard to envision a scenario where a helmet actually makes someone crash.

I can give 2 example where it has happened to me

Firstly - I was riding along wearing a helmet as normal - the common type with ventilation slots in the top
I was going along a road with no pavement on that side and bushed growing close to the road
It turned out that one of the bushes had twigs growing downwards
One of these twigs happened to be exactly the right size, height and angle to slide into one of the slots on my helmet
and as a result, as I passed my head was suddenly yanked backwards as the twig grabbed hold
Luckily the car that was passing had just got passed and the next one was some distance behind - and the force was directly backwards and not sideways at all
ALso - the change in angle as I passed allowed the twig to slide out again quite quickly
I did swerve out into the road quite a bit so it was lucky that no car was actually passing - and also that I swerved that way and not into the kerb and bushes


Secondly - I ride along canals a lot and the towpath goes under the standard humpback bridges - which are quite low over the path
also - naturally - I am on my bike and hence taller than normal
There is one bridge where there is a stone in the roof which is an inch or so lower than the rest - and as I am wearing a helmet the top of it is an inch or so higher than normal
Hence if I go under that stone then my head can bang into the stone quite hard - whereas it would miss if I didn;t wear it



Both are quite obtuse situations but they do demonstrate that a helmet CAN cause problem

the other situation I have heard is one where the impact is right on the edge but quite hard - so the head alone would have missed or had a glancing impact
but with the helmet the impact is much worse - and in spite of the padding some of it transfer to the head inside

again - low chance of it happening but it does


so the things that is there to prevent or reduce harm can in some unlikely occasions cause harm or make something minor worse.

similar to the concept that wearing a seatbelt in a car can cause problem if the car ends up under water or on fire and someone can;t get you out of because of the seatbelt
which was put forward when they were made compulsory - but rejected due to, basically, the stats