Ben Goldacre - Helmet 'Bad Science'

[Linford]

Did you read the article? What did you think of its conclusions?

It comes across as everybody should be cycling at any cost as the advantages of cycling outweigh the risks...which is nothing which has not been put before...just people playing with statistics to try and justify their pre existing personal prejudices.

Cold comfort when it is yours or your kids brains on the road...

 

[Linford]

Linf, what you believe and what is actualy stated is rather different I expect. Can you explain why cycling srw's exact commute is 'chancing it'? What are the exact hazards on srw's route? What the probability of each of these risks occurring? How are these mitigated by a helmet?


It's the sort of thing the article in this post covers if you fancy reading it perhaps.

Don't be an arse mcshroom...he can't tell you these specifically because they change on every ride with the traffic on them.

 

[mcshroom]

Don't be an arse mcshroom...he can't tell you these specifically because they change on every ride with the traffic on them.

Yet you can determine, without even having once looked at the route, that he is 'chancing it' - Interesting

 

[mcshroom]

It comes across as everybody should be cycling at any cost as the advantages of cycling outweigh the risks...which is nothing which has not been put before...just people playing with statistics to try and justify their pre existing personal prejudices.

Cold comfort when it is yours or your kids brains on the road...

Does it? It points out that the case for any benefit/disbenefit of helmets is unclear, and sums up that: -

... the current uncertainty about any benefit from helmet wearing or promotion is unlikely to be substantially reduced by further research. Equally, we can be certain that helmets will continue to be debated, and at length. The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.

As for the 'brains on the floor' analogy, see threads passim about the relative risks of head injury doing other every day activities such as walking which don't have people immediately jumping for helmets. This ties in rather well with the psycological and cultural aspects of the risk debate suggested by Goldacre.

 

[Linford]

There is helmet compulsion in Aus. Do the get more effective helmets?

Aus is a tiny market. The country has a population less than half the UK despite being a huge place.

 

[User482]

It comes across as everybody should be cycling at any cost as the advantages of cycling outweigh the risks...which is nothing which has not been put before...just people playing with statistics to try and justify their pre existing personal prejudices.

Cold comfort when it is yours or your kids brains on the road...

Really? Could you tell me where in the article it says that?

 

[Linford]

Yet you can determine, without even having once looked at the route, that he is 'chancing it' - Interesting

Can you post up a copy of his risk assesment on the route is without substance.
One thing for certain and my POV is certain of is that if it takes place on the public highway, the levels and vehicle types are unpredictable by nature.

 

[Profpointy]

It comes across as everybody should be cycling at any cost as the advantages of cycling outweigh the risks...which is nothing which has not been put before...just people playing with statistics to try and justify their pre existing personal prejudices.

Cold comfort when it is yours or your kids brains on the road...

Yes quite true, which is why I always put my helmet on before climbing stairs. I may look silly, but at least my brains won't on the floor...

..... See what i did there ?

 

[Linford]

Really? Could you tell me where in the article it says that?

this is the standard argument trotted out

Even if helmets do have an effect on head injury rates, it would not necessarily follow that legislation would have public health benefits overall. This is because of “second round” effects, such as changes in cycling rates, which may affect individual and population health. Modelling studies have generally concluded that regular cyclists live longer because the health effects of cycling far outweigh the risk of crashes

 

[Linford]

Yes quite true, which is why I always put my helmet on before climbing stairs. I may look silly, but at least my brains won't on the floor...

..... See what i did there ?

An entirely sensible thing to do...keep it up

 

[Linford]

Vs.

The British Medical Journal.

Hmmm. Tricky one.

Nothing like some selective cut and paste to skew anyones POV mister

 

[User482]

this is the standard argument trotted out

I asked you to show me where it says "It comes across as everybody should be cycling at any cost as the advantages of cycling outweigh the risks."

Your quote doesn't support your assertion.

 

[Linford]

Nevertheless, their government could have legislated for minimum standards but didn't. I don't suppose ours would either.

We are now in the compersation culture age..motorbike lids were legislated for before this

 

[Linford]

I asked you to show me where it says "It comes across as everybody should be cycling at any cost as the advantages of cycling outweigh the risks."

Your quote doesn't support your assertion.

I don't really get your POV either.

 

[Dan B]

Nevertheless, their government could have legislated for minimum standards but didn't. I don't suppose ours would either.

EN1078 is about as "minimum" as standards get