Ben Goldacre - Helmet 'Bad Science'

[Linford]

Just one test?

How did you get that from the list I gave?



I also quoted three different standards!




Nope - I raised a number of points such as whether the test is carried out on "off the shelf" products or not, the others re just part of a simple summary




How on earth did you get that from :







This clearly advocates looking for a helmet that passes a higher standard, and that any helmet passing En1078 alone should be passed over in favour of one passing the tougher tests.

The elephant in the room with all of this is that there are realistically many instances where head protection device may not manage to totally prevent an injury due to extreme forces involved, but they will nevertheless reduce the transmission of these forces by a significant amount...say from 'certain death' down to 'severe concussion' I don't think there are many motorcyclists out there who ride today who would be happy to settle for the latter in the event of an 'off' or severe bruising instead of a break with the use of body armour. Motorcycling is a pastime which has inherent danger attached to it. People going from wearing the gear and apply risk compensation to not wearing the gear will naturally be more cautious....you have a lot more wind noise when removing the lid, but give people a few hours and they forget about all that and will ride according to the conditions, performance available or riding skills

As for people being dissuaded from cycling because their ego is struggling, then sorry, but they really must be sad individuals if they are more concerned with how others perceive them than whether they live or die after an off !

 

[mcshroom]

And thus Linf proves Ben Goldacre's point.

 

[StuartG]

Can I ask a simple question since I'm about to develop a new material that has almost no mass, is infinitely strong and can be extruded into a thin lattice helmet so you can wear it with almost no ventilation downside. All for £20 from your local Lidl.

How many lives will this save? And I'm looking for a clear holistic statistically sound answer.

 

[mcshroom]

If it's a holistic answer you want, then surely the memory of the material will be stronger than the material itself?

 

[Linford]

Can I ask a simple question since I'm about to develop a new material that has almost no mass, is infinitely strong and can be extruded into a thin lattice helmet so you can wear it with almost no ventilation downside. All for £20 from your local Lidl.

How many lives will this save? And I'm looking for a clear holistic statistically sound answer.

If it doesn't complement the ego of the rider (if this thread is anything to go by), it won't sell....It isn't strength that is the required property of a lid, it is compliance.
I'm an extrusion tool designer in the day job for a variety of materials. I'd be interested to see what you have in mind if this is a serious proposition ?

 

[Linford]

And thus Linf proves Ben Goldacre's point.

You won't wear anything which you perceive will make you look like a knob though

 

[mcshroom]

To give a less flippant answer, less than 119 using 2012 data from the DfT. - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/265224/Pedal_Cyclist_Factsheet_2012.pdf

How many less depends on the percentage who were killed by head injuries, minus the percentage of those who were killed by head injuries, but had other fatal injuries.

 

[StuartG]

Thanks McS - we are beginning to size this. Less than 119.

The London HGV deaths had pretty indiscriminate tyres hitting random parts of the body of which the head is a very small part. So I'm guessing (oh how I hate that) its a pretty small part of the 119. That's before accounting for counter affects of risk aversion. Are we looking at positive or negative? Come on we should have factual basis to make decisions. And, dear Linf, if the perfect helmet can reduce deaths significantly then mandation is a strong possibility. So egos don't count unless they, in turn, significantly increase the cranial volume.

 

[mcshroom]

Rhetorical question?

Looks like it.

 

[srw]

Clearly not you as you have not and will never have a serious off...for all your talk about risk you don't appear to understand effect. ..

At some stage I'm sure I shall have a serious off - I do enough cycling that I put myself in harm's way quite a lot, although I do usually ride very defensively and have a very low risk appetite for hurting myself. I also know that the difference between "serious off and uninjured", "serious off and minor injuries", "serious off and major injuries" and "serious off and dead" is a matter of dumb luck, and that on my commute a bit of polystyrene isn't going to affect that dumb luck all that much.

I've also done a risk assessment on motorcyling. And I've concluded that I don't want to go anywhere near a motorbike.

 

[ufkacbln]

Can I ask a simple question since I'm about to develop a new material that has almost no mass, is infinitely strong and can be extruded into a thin lattice helmet so you can wear it with almost no ventilation downside. All for £20 from your local Lidl.

How many lives will this save? And I'm looking for a clear holistic statistically sound answer.

Assuming 100 % effectiveness, and that all deaths could be prevented....and of course universal wearing

Out of every 100 present deaths you would save

39.1 pedestrians
11.9 motorcyclists (although they alrady wear them?)
24.9 Drivers
15.6 Vehicle passengers
8.5 Cyclists

 

[Linford]

Where did that come from? The only ego I can see is the one that keeps posting photos of itself astride its motorbike - on a cycling forum.

You mean you missed the other one taken a few weeks ago in Mallorca ?

The motorbike pic was only put in to illustrate the amount of protective clothing worn on it. The lid is just a part of the armoury. I have been seriously hurt on motorbikes in the past without it and a good degree less so when with so i appreciate the value of quality gear. I see a crossover in both modes.

Humility is accepting that we are not invincible, and not infallible. These are not the defining features of big ego's

 

[Linford]

At some stage I'm sure I shall have a serious off - I do enough cycling that I put myself in harm's way quite a lot, although I do usually ride very defensively and have a very low risk appetite for hurting myself. I also know that the difference between "serious off and uninjured", "serious off and minor injuries", "serious off and major injuries" and "serious off and dead" is a matter of dumb luck, and that on my commute a bit of polystyrene isn't going to affect that dumb luck all that much.

I've also done a risk assessment on motorcyling. And I've concluded that I don't want to go anywhere near a motorbike.

I gather you feel cycling is a safe enough mode to chance it then ?

 

[Linford]

As ever, you sem to have it arse about face. Riding bare-headed is an expression of our weakness, vulnerability, vincibility, and fallibility. Wearing, an extremely inadequate helmet, is a vain attempt at immortality.

Someone said to me about the value of mitigation in the many climate change threads i participated in should not be dismissed . Is safety gear for vulnerable road users not the same sort of ideal ?

 

[Wobblers]

You mean you missed the other one taken a few weeks ago in Mallorca ?

The motorbike pic was only put in to illustrate the amount of protective clothing worn on it. The lid is just a part of the armoury. I have been seriously hurt on motorbikes in the past without it and a good degree less so when with so i appreciate the value of quality gear. I see a crossover in both modes.

Humility is accepting that we are not invincible, and not infallible. These are not the defining features of big ego's

You're not very good on the humility front.

On the subject of helmets, cycling and major injuries, well I had my turn 18 months ago. I wasn't wearing a helmet. Just as well, for I would have struck my head on the ground at 25 mph (helmets add bulk to your head, and the brusises on my shoulder bear testiment as to how close my head came to the ground) had I been. I worked out the torque that would have been applied to my neck had I been wearing a helmet. It turned out that it exceeded the torsional strength of cortical bone. Most likely I would have torn tendons, muscles and ligaments, and spent the next 8+ weeks in a cervical collar. That is, after the terrifying experience of lying in the middle of the road not daring to move and being ambulanced on blues and twos to A&E. Doubtless I would have been informed by some quack as to how my "helmet had saved my life". And I would still have broken four bones in my ankle. This is the best case scenario.

What, in your incessent trolling, you fail to realise (and it doesn't matter whether it is through arrogance or ignorance) is that there are situations that helmets not merely don't help, they actually make things worse - by increasing the rotational mass, by increasing the probability of head impact, by transferring loads to vulnerable structures.