Benefits of wearing a helmet

[lukesdad]

good point when considering how dangerous walking is if we are to believe the data suggested by anti helmet group. If the walkers include drunks leaving pubs this could affect these stats dramatically

To do a fair comparison between the 2 groups you have to start with a level playing field. Pedestrians walk for a reason, and the reason for a lot of them doing so is because they are not capable of other forms of transport. This is due to not being fully in charge of their actions as with drunks unsupervised children and the elderley. Therefore we conclude they will be far more likely to have an incident involving injury due to their lack of judgement.



Mmm now where can I find examples of lack of judgement easily ?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

To do a fair comparison between the 2 groups you have to start with a level playing field. Pedestrians walk for a reason, and the reason for a lot of them doing so is because they are not capable of other forms of transport. This is due to not being fully in charge of their actions as with drunks unsupervised children and the elderley. Therefore we conclude they will be far more likely to have an incident involving injury due to their lack of judgement.



Mmm now where can I find examples of lack of judgement easily ?

I do find it interesting that some are happy to compare head injury statistics of pedestrians with cyclists without having other relevant data such as age and state of soberness. I also find it extremely interesting to discover that the BMJ can be bought by anyone and as such anyone could have voted. Thus it is not medical opinion at all simply the opinions of those who voted (Yes I know I am mixing threads here)

 

[numbnuts]

I've come to the conclusion that empty buckets anti helmet people make the most sound

 

[ufkacbln]

but to show im fair:

1. Yes if you fall and bang your head

Selective groups only or in all cases such as pedestrians?
Would a helmet have the same effect in as similar impact in a pedestrian and a cyclist?

2. Yes - if it saves just 1 life then they are worth wearing

Does that include pedestrians and vehicle occupants as well?
.

3. Not in its entirety, lots of variable factors to consider, properly conducted surveys/investigations before bringing in any law. If it is of benefit to people/age groups/certain riding conditions, then i would not oppose it in the proven certain areas

So an all out compulsion is not indicated then?

What if this evidence (as is likely) shows that the greatest reduction in health are costs was compulsory helmets for 65 year old males on stairs (NICE guidelines)

 

[ufkacbln]

Try these:

1. Do you hate people purely because they choose to wear a helmet?

Not at all, this is your assumption that anyone who dares to question that the omnipotence of helmets, and their ability to solve all the issues hates helmet wearers. MUch easier than adressing the actual issues though

2. Do you get so angry with helmet wearers when you see them out on their bikes or is just helmet wearers who are on forums not close up?

Neither, again your delusion.

It is a personal and informed choice. I do however have a problem with people trying to remove that personal choice, or objecting to the the information that helmets are not a "magic bullet".

3. Odd how this thread was civil before you joined it, have you realised that?

Try reading it again!

4. Can you conduct your self like a grown up?

Childish "experiments" like "bang yor hed against a brik wall and see if it hurtz" don't deserve an adult response

5. Do you have a fetish about food?

Just to explain this a bit more for you......

If you have any knowledge of helmet compulsion and its effects then you would be more aware of why fruit was used to discredit your justification for helmet compulsion. The fact is that your implication that because it hurts less was justification for making helmets mandatory is equally valid for any other intervention.

Secondly you would be aware of the use of fruit based helmets in other countries to circumvent helmet compulsion

 

[david k]

To do a fair comparison between the 2 groups you have to start with a level playing field. Pedestrians walk for a reason, and the reason for a lot of them doing so is because they are not capable of other forms of transport. This is due to not being fully in charge of their actions as with drunks unsupervised children and the elderley. Therefore we conclude they will be far more likely to have an incident involving injury due to their lack of judgement.

Mmm now where can I find examples of lack of judgement easily ?

very good points, all well made, food for thought eh

 

[david k]

I've come to the conclusion that empty buckets anti helmet people make the most sound

 

[ufkacbln]

and the other one you keep avoiding, are the medical experts to be considered as reputable in this debate or not

Is this in answer to the question I asked you as to why you accepted helmets for adults, but not for toddlers?

Medical Experts and whether they should be refuted depends on the expert, the research performed and how it was performed.

What was the bias, was the data collected properly and verified. Does it stand up to peer review. Are the results limited in their application or are they transferable to other similar or disparate groups.

Critical analysis of the evidence and form an informed conclusion of that particular instance is the answer.


What you do need to be is consistent though..... if you do suggest that a particular organisation or individual should be refuted or accepted then surely that should be given?



Take an example that was cited on another thread.

1. We should listen to the College of Emergency Medicine and listen to their advice when they promote helmets. This is because they are experts in A&E Medicine and know what they are talking about.

2. Yet when the "Thudguard" is promoted by the same organisation, it is no longer neccessary to listen to their advice and it is OK to ignore it. SUdenly the same body is no longer and expert and don't know what they are talking about.

 

[david k]

for clarity, i think no evidence should be disregarded without careful consideration, from a medical expert or other. It has been said on here that medical experts are not to be listened too in respect of cycle helmets, i disagree, however the evidence may or may not be as relevant as other evidence, i suppose its horses for courses, all data is there to be considered and absorbed before forming an opinion.

Mine remains the same however.

Ok, it was nice resuming play with you all, I'm taking the kids out for a cycle, all wearing helmets of course

laters

 

[david k]

care to clarify your position? without claiming it an assumption or coming back with another question or photo of fruit

 

[ufkacbln]

You stated that if helmets saved a single life then they were worth wearing.

You have then avoided the question if that applies to pedestrians

Why are you avoiding that answer?

 

[ufkacbln]

care to clarify your position? without claiming it an assumption or coming back with another question or photo of fruit

Very, very simple.

Helmets may contribute to a small degree in some case, in others they may not. In the worst case there is evidence that they could indeed exacerbate or even cause injury


People have the right to choose for themselves whether they wear them or not

However that decision should be theirs and also be informed, with the full knowledge of the limitations

Banging your head against a brick wall to "prove" helmets work is one of the prime examples of the pro compulsion "science" that needs to be discredited.

 

[david k]

answered it before, do you want to look through the posts and find it? ok ill answer yet again to save you the trouble

the stats are flawed, they take cyclists and walkers, however walkers come from any walk of life/age, so drunks old people etc who are more likely to have an accident are grouped together, they are obviously less likely to cycle. also if a cyclist falls and a helmet reduces injury they are less likely to report it, therefore reducing the amount reported, as you can see there are many variables to this stat

However, even if the stats are correct, it is proved on here time and again that it is safer to cycle than walk when considering like for like.

if you have a spare hour and want some exercise it is proven that you are safer walking, therefore as the risk is reduced theres no need to wear a helmet to walk

 

[david k]

Very, very simple.

Helmets may contribute to a small degree in some case, in others they may not. In the worst case there is evidence that they could indeed exacerbate or even cause injury


People have the right to choose for themselves whether they wear them or not

However that decision should be theirs and also be informed, with the full knowledge of the limitations

Banging your head against a brick wall to "prove" helmets work is one of the prime examples of the pro compulsion "science" that needs to be discredited.

i almost agree with you, i think helmets do a good job, they are less likely to save your life in a 50mph crash than some people believe but this does not mean they are of no value, just anti pro compulsion extreme to discredit them.

i think these anti compulsion posts need to be careful as they read that you think helmets are a dangerous thing and could put some people off wearing them at all, so the science needs to be balanced. Informed means see both sides, not one. I am now very informed after all these posts and still feel the same way. just because you feel they have limitations it isnt wise to over play the alternative, it could have the opposite affect to what you want

the head in wall test is very simplistic, and yes as stated before at the risk of repeating myself i think anything is to be made law it must be done after full investigation ( you remember i posted that0 you seem to change focus about my threads everytime you type, dont be selective and the debate can remain civil

 

[ufkacbln]

answered it before, do you want to look through the posts and find it? ok ill answer yet again to save you the trouble

the stats are flawed, they take cyclists and walkers, however walkers come from any walk of life/age, so drunks old people etc who are more likely to have an accident are grouped together, they are obviously less likely to cycle. also if a cyclist falls and a helmet reduces injury they are less likely to report it, therefore reducing the amount reported, as you can see there are many variables to this stat

However, even if the stats are correct, it is proved on here time and again that it is safer to cycle than walk when considering like for like.

if you have a spare hour and want some exercise it is proven that you are safer walking, therefore as the risk is reduced theres no need to wear a helmet to walk

still avoiding.....

Your statement was that if helmets saved a single life they should be worn.


Why are you now selecting which lives?

If that single life is a drunk, a pedestrian or a toddler and it could be saved by wearing a helmet - why shouldn't it?

Why play God and select which lives are saved?