Ben Goldacre - Helmet 'Bad Science'

[Linford]

Bear in mind that I'm only going by what I'm seeing on this thread and what I know personally of the people involved. And that argument from authority is a logical fallacy so widespread that it has its own Latin tag ("argumentum ex auctoritate").

But I've spent 17 years working in a risk-related industry and have a risk-related professional qualification - and manage risk (in its widest sense) for a (very handsome) living. Stuart G is a professional statistician - which means he can do the difficult sums and complex thought required to understad risk. Ben Goldacre is a doctor by background, so is trained in understanding individual injuries, and now works in epidemiology - which is the application of risk and statistics to medicine and public health.

We are discussing a matter of risk and public health.

You, Linford, design tools.

You have just furnished the thread with a series of stats which have proven that there is significant risk for people who cycle and motorcycle....now I know this because I do both and have done so for more than double the years you have worked a risk assessor, and my opinions are formed from real life experiences and not pushing buttons around a calculator as you clearly do.
The requirement of skill to ride a motorbike properly and safely far exceeds that of driving a car or riding a bicycle and most of the people injured in the stats in this group are novices.

I must say....this is just like CA&D on this board now...are there no decent threads to debate in there still ?

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2836007, member: 45"]I will politely point put that the figures for motorbikelists are with your mitigation.[/quote]

And you want to join the ranks of bikers on the road still ?

 

[ShipHill]

Your helmet didn't have a single mark on it...not even a graze ? ?

Not one of the many motorcycle helmets I've worn over the 30 odd years I've been riding many thousands of miles has ever hit the deck. I've had 2 lowsiders, hit a car that necked me although I was doing way less than 30mph through town at the time and got clipped on a racetrack doing about 50mph and kind of tumbled to the tarmac I think although "it all happened so fast".

Why my head/helmet didn't hit the deck in some of these incidents I don't know. I guess (ooh the science!) it's a natural human instinct to try and keep your bonce out the way so maybe I tucked my bonce in or my arms did some flailing about I'm not sure.

The one instance where my helmet DID save me some severe damage was when I hit a crow or some such bird up the M5 once. Shook me up and that would have been messy without my lid on.

 

[ShipHill]

[QUOTE 2836056, member: 45"]
Men aged between 35 and 55 riding bikes over 125cc on rural roads [/quote]

That's me!

 

[Linford]

I must say....this is just like CA&D on this board now...are there no decent threads to debate on in there still ?
[QUOTE 2836056, member: 45"]Most are novices? Source please?

Men aged between 35 and 55 riding bikes over 125cc on rural roads remains the most likely scenario for an accident and account for two thirds of all motorcycle crashes[/quote]

Passing the test is only the beginning....you never stop learning...it doesn't really help that motorcycles are very vulnerable to changes in the quality of road surfaces and they have only been getting worse over the last few years. It will take decades to bring them back up again. Are you sure you want to join the ranks ? You won't be riding the motorway to work on L plates.

 

[Wobblers]

If i didn't wear one myself the accusation of trolling would be a valid one. All the pictures of me show i do. To assert my belief is trolling now...very good. As for cycling not being much more dangerous than cars....they already sit in steel cages and are restrained with seat belts. Cycling is many more times more dangerous than travelling in a car per km

You've not deigned to support your claims with any evidence. (And no, photos of yourself onna motorbike do not count.)

On the other hand, the only - only - reason that you are here is to evoke a response, bu whatever means necessary. Which explains the nastiness in the Cafe favourite music and "Your ride today" threads. And your deliberate obtuseness here. I have to wonder why - doesn't it get boring, saying the same old thing to the same old people again and again and again? It's rather like "Groundhog Day", only without Bill Murray... or any humour... Surely there's a bit more to your life than a spot of pedestrian trolling (why not try some wit, take a leaf out of @Smeggers II's book for irrelevant irreverance)? I do worry about you; I wouldn't want to think that winding people up is the be all and end all of your existence you know...

 

[Wobblers]

Really...now my opinion is that you got lucky in the way you fell...the thing about an accident is you are not in control of the situation...you cannot control what you connect with, and unless you are a practiced gymnast would struggle to orientate yourself into a position where you can decide what hits the road first.

If you had gone head first over the bars you would more than likely have no choice in the matter.

I thought that to be so self evident as to be insulting to point it out. How wrong I was! Of course you have damn all control in a crash. That - is - the - point. It is not a sensible strategy to make your head larger in such a situation - it increases the probability of a head impact.

Now, is there anything else obvious you'd like to have pointed out?

 

[ShipHill]

Interesting article here >> http://www.bikelawyer.co.uk/bike-accident-statistics

No age stats in there though.

Born again bikers are mentioned... as is booze... unobservant drivers and the usual stuff we know and love.

 

[Wobblers]

You have just furnished the thread with a series of stats which have proven that there is significant risk for people who cycle and motorcycle....now I know this because I do both and have done so for more than double the years you have worked a risk assessor, and my opinions are formed from real life experiences and not pushing buttons around a calculator as you clearly do.
The requirement of skill to ride a motorbike properly and safely far exceeds that of driving a car or riding a bicycle and most of the people injured in the stats in this group are novices.

It also shows that pedestrians have the same level of risk to cyclists. I trust you are now going to insist that all pedestrians wear helmets, and wear one yourself at all times when walking - you don't want to be a hypocrite now, do you?

I must say....this is just like CA&D on this board now...are there no decent threads to debate in there still ?

<derisive snort> Now I wonder why that is...

 

[Fab Foodie]

quite. The clothes are frightful.

Scootering on the other hand ....

 

[Linford]

Scootering on the other hand ....

View attachment 34833

I am a great fan of scooters...i have an aprilia 125 in the garage as a project which will eventually (hopefully) be running with a big 2 stroke engine..big task though

 

[Linford]

It also shows that pedestrians have the same level of risk to cyclists. I trust you are now going to insist that all pedestrians wear helmets, and wear one yourself at all times when walking - you don't want to be a hypocrite now, do you?



<derisive snort> Now I wonder why that is...

Pedestrians have to put in a lot more hours in the environment to be exposed to the same percentage of risk...average walking speed on the flat 3-4mph..average cycling speed 12-14mph

 

[Venod]

Pedestrians have to put in a lot more hours in the environment to be exposed to the same percentage of risk...average walking speed on the flat 3-4mph..average cycling speed 12-14mph

So if I cycle at 3-4mph am I OK not to wear a helmet ?

 

[Linford]

So if I cycle at 3-4mph am I OK not to wear a helmet ?

If you walk 24 miles at 4 miles per hour then it will take you 6 hours in the environment to cover that distance. If you cycle 24 miles at 12 miles per hour then it will take you 2 hours in the environment to do the same, so your exposure level over the same distance in the environment as a pedestrian would have to be much higher to get the same result...would you not agree ?

 

[Venod]

If you walk 24 miles at 4 miles per hour then it will take you 6 hours in the environment to cover that distance. If you cycle 24 miles at 12 miles per hour then it will take you 2 hours in the environment to do the same, so your exposure level over the same distance in the environment as a pedestrian would have to be much higher to get the same result...would you not agree ?

Yes I agree but it does not answer my question, I am interested that you suggest wearing an helmet when cycling because of the risks involved, about the same percentage risk as walking, you pointed out that walking is much slower, so in your opinion the risks are not the same as you do not advocate wearing an helmet for walking do you ?, so my question "So if I cycle at 3-4mph am I OK not to wear a helmet ?" was a genuine one for you to answer.

I do wear an helmet when competing and if I go out in a group I would wear one, but I think its more peer pressure than a common sense decision, as years ago nobody on a group ride would wear one.