Deaths when not using helmet

[ufkacbln]

The biggest difference is communication and diversity.


Historically the local development of parallel devices, subtly different and yet with the same function is well documented.

It was impossible to debate or exchange basic ideas due to distance and language.

For instance the people who use canteloupes as bowling balls may not have had access to a greasy burger bar and therefore the secondary role of food was important.

Nowadays though much of the groundwork is already done and available so the need to start at basics or with faith or trial and error is (at least partially) removed. The basic question that is asked now fro most research is what is out there, is it valid and can I add to that information?

If the answer is no then use the work that is already there to inform your choice.... once you have read, critically analysed and decided for ypurself the relevance to your situation - then act upon the INFORMED choice

Scepticism is healthy and should be encouraged. Modern Science relies on this and ranks "evidence" accordingly. NO Scientist in the modern day would expect their results or conculsions to be accepted withut questioning and or analysis. That is the whole point of peer review and critical analysis


Faith is an issue when it becomes "evangelical" and tries to replace Science.

For many years "faith" restricted Science and held back advancement and development..... that is where faith becomes an issue.

Sceince and scepticism examine both sides of the argument and have no problem discussing or debating.

Faith however says my way is right and you should not question it.

 

[ufkacbln]

but some wish to hide behind their stats of choice when questioning somebodys sanity for wearing a helmet
i have confidence in my own decision making, i dont need continued investigation and critical anlysis to form a simple decision, it must be difficult for those who do

As above - this is where Faith and Science differ.

There is information for and against helmets

Both should be put in the open domain (such as forum thread), read and accepted.

Science accepts that such disagreement, the discussion of positive and negative aspects is healthy and should be encouraged.

Faith prefers to act on deeply held beliefs, and will then devalue any evidence that does not agree with that Faith as a personal attack, unacceptable for this reason or because it is simply not worth bothering with



These are prime examples where it is acceptable to encourage helmet use, and yet anything that questions that evidence is seen as a insulting the decisions of those who wish to wear helmets and questioning their sanity, and "anti -helmet".

There is no questioning of sanity, forcing people not to wear helmets, or suggesting they are wrong, just presenting the fact that the argument for is neither fully evidenced or conclusive.

In fact it is the other way round if anything with the actions of those who do not wish to wear helmets being declared "wrong".

The information is posted as exactly that information, read it, analyse it, and then act upon it as you feel fit.... no-one has ever had a problem with that

 

[Red Light]

stainless steel was also found by accident i believe.

History of Stainless Steel

 

[ufkacbln]

Morning lukesdad

I like your analogy, I'm led to believe that many things invented have been found by chance, working on one thing when through trail and error or expirience they find something else. I trust myself, I am in charge of my own destiny and therefore will not be taking the advice of people with a fruit fetish. wearing a helmet is a simple individual choice, that person can draw on what he like to make that decision, as its a simple safety choice my own experience tells me to wear one, the evidence I value tells me to wear one, my attitude does not change when i wear one so no need for concerns from others about that.

Do we really have freedom of choice when others want hard facts before allowing us the decision to wear a helmet? They question it and try to make us look stupid, why would people do that?

Lets look at the original post.

What was the reasoning for posting it??

To provide fact based evidence would have restricted freedom of choice by presenting hard facts before allowing people the decision not to wear a helmet on their own personal beliefs?

They would be questioning the right to choose not to wear a helmet and try to make those people look stupid, why would someone do that?

 

[John90]

The discovery of penicillin was not a result of trial and error, it was serendipitous observation of a fortuitous accident followed by scientific investigation. Goodyear's discovery of vulcanisation of rubber is probably the best example of trial and error discovery. It was discovered by accident and then, because the accident had not been the result of a structured investigation, it took a lot of structured investigation to find out what he had actually done and be able to repeat it.

That's a better example; my point is that trial and error, and serendipity come to that, are not in opposition to science.

 

[John90]

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes). For example, "It wasn't medicine that cured Ms. X, so it must have been a miracle."

To me it seems as though another option must exist in order for the term False Dichotomy to be used.

To put it in those terms then, the other option is that both trial and error and research are encompassed by science and can be mutually supportive. However, to return to the post that I first referenced, the scientific method is the best way we have found to verify and build on our knowledge. Way better than, and way different to, faith.

 

[lukesdad]

Sorry, that's just wrong. Science is based on scepticism, not faith. The debate about advances coming from trial and error or science is a false dichotomy.

I wasnt commenting on what science was based on.


As in most things there is good and bad science.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I wasnt commenting on what science was based on.


As in most things there is good and bad science.

Exactly. To me I prefer the evidence of my eyes and ears to pages of numbers and conclusions drawn from within. I would love to see a scientific methodology employed to design a safer cycling helmet but until such time I will wear one as I have seen what not wearing one can lead to. If I had seen evidence to the contrary I am sure I would not be wearing one.

 

[lukesdad]

Science can be a powerful tool, don t get me wrong. I just have a major problem in this case, with the way some quite misleading research is being put to use. I dont think its for personal safety, I think its to fight compulsion. I also think to do this is irresponsible.



If you want to fight compulsion it should be done on a pro choice issue. You would probably find universal support Here then.

 

[ufkacbln]

Exactly. To me I prefer the evidence of my eyes and ears to pages of numbers and conclusions drawn from within. I would love to see a scientific methodology employed to design a safer cycling helmet but until such time I will wear one as I have seen what not wearing one can lead to. If I had seen evidence to the contrary I am sure I would not be wearing one.

Which is again why (Good) Science is able to put into place a certainty that perhaps personal faith does not.

I worked in A/E departments for many years and I have seen head injuries in all age groups and many diferent severities, including post mortem.

My experience is that these injuries are most common in young teenagers who have been out drinking, and severest in elderly people with falls and very few cyclists. Only one of the fatalities I have seen has been a cyclist, 4 were motorcyclists, 2 car drivers and 1 elderly gentleman who had slipped on a set of stairs.

My personal experience suggests that head injuries are not just limited to cyclists.

However is that any more valid than yours when applying it o yourself, or looking at a wider picture?

The scope and quantity of the evidence,(both the advantages and disadvantages, the achievements and limitations) are far wider surely than anyone's own personal information or experience ?

That is why I think Science is important and would agree fully that it is the way forward in improving helmet technology.

 

[ufkacbln]

Science can be a powerful tool, don t get me wrong. I just have a major problem in this case, with the way some quite misleading research is being put to use. I dont think its for personal safety, I think its to fight compulsion. I also think to do this is irresponsible.



If you want to fight compulsion it should be done on a pro choice issue. You would probably find universal support Here then.

The original premise of this thread was a good example with the way that it was presented without the disclaimers, the stated limitations and discussion of the original authors.

I also feel strongly that the duplicity of presenting "evidence" to support helmet use as good, but then dismissing any evidence that they have limitations is unacceptable, anti helmet and anti freedom of choice is all too simple way of avoiding arguments that some people are uncomfortable with.

I fully agree with pro-choice, and my stance is fully that, you can wear a helmet or not. I simply feel that the choice should be informed, with realistic expectations and free from moral coercion or emotional blackmail.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Which is again why (Good) Science is able to put into place a certainty that perhaps personal faith does not.

I worked in A/E departments for many years and I have seen head injuries in all age groups and many diferent severities, including post mortem.

My experience is that these injuries are most common in young teenagers who have been out drinking, and severest in elderly people with falls and very few cyclists. Only one of the fatalities I have seen has been a cyclist, 4 were motorcyclists, 2 car drivers and 1 elderly gentleman who had slipped on a set of stairs.

My personal experience suggests that head injuries are not just limited to cyclists.

However is that any more valid than yours when applying it o yourself, or looking at a wider picture?

The scope and quantity of the evidence,(both the advantages and disadvantages, the achievements and limitations) are far wider surely than anyone's own personal information or experience ?

That is why I think Science is important and would agree fully that it is the way forward in improving helmet technology.

)
Please do not get me wrong I am not anti science. What I am opposed to are statistics alone being used as a proof. Also not all science is good science. I am against animal testing for eg. If science can develope safer headgear then I am 100% behind it. If stats tell me helmets don't work I don't believe them as I have seen them work. Also as an aside Helmets seem to be one of the few things that do not have a SWL concept. Ie a jack has a SWL
of 1.5ton but would be able to lift closer to 3t. A helmet is designed to a max functional use of a 12mph impact with no leway at all (or so it seems)

 

[ufkacbln]

)
Please do not get me wrong I am not anti science. What I am opposed to are statistics alone being used as a proof. Also not all science is good science. I am against animal testing for eg. If science can develope safer headgear then I am 100% behind it. If stats tell me helmets don't work I don't believe them as I have seen them work. Also as an aside Helmets seem to be one of the few things that do not have a SWL concept. Ie a jack has a SWL
of 1.5ton but would be able to lift closer to 3t. A helmet is designed to a max functional use of a 12mph impact with no leway at all (or so it seems)

I didn't take this as anti-science at all.

It is because of the good / bad science that I have always clearly advocated that reading and critically analysing any documentation on this subject is essential as some of it is very questionable in deed - As previously posted take BHIT's claim that helmets will save a child dying from a cycle related head injury every week, when in fact the total under 16 for that year was 3!

The problem is getting that message across.

Unless these claims are challenged and shown to be poor Science, unless the magic bullet claims are also challenged then there is a real danger that they will be accepted as fact and the answer to many of cycling's problems.

Take the number of organisations now making helmets compulsory on these erroneous claims and lies.

It is also interesting to see the AA going down the helmet route as the answer to cyclists problems and the IAM looking at road user training as the better option.

What is really worrying is the inability to accept that it is possible to question the pro-helmet evidence, raise alternatives, or offer alternative evidence is positive and promotes informed choice.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I didn't take this as anti-science at all.

It is because of the good / bad science that I have always clearly advocated that reading and critically analysing any documentation on this subject is essential as some of it is very questionable in deed - As previously posted take BHIT's claim that helmets will save a child dying from a cycle related head injury every week, when in fact the total under 16 for that year was 3!

The problem is getting that message across.

Unless these claims are challenged and shown to be poor Science, unless the magic bullet claims are also challenged then there is a real danger that they will be accepted as fact and the answer to many of cycling's problems.

Take the number of organisations now making helmets compulsory on these erroneous claims and lies.

It is also interesting to see the AA going down the helmet route as the answer to cyclists problems and the IAM looking at road user training as the better option.

What is really worrying is the inability to accept that it is possible to question the pro-helmet evidence, raise alternatives, or offer alternative evidence is positive and promotes informed choice.

What you are saying makes perfect sense. I am sad that there is a push for compulsion. It seems to be a "trendy" bandwagon to be on at the moment. That said I also do not like statistical evidence being used to show them to be usless or unnessecary. A series of real life crash test dummy experiments would be far more illuminating and far less open to interpretation.

 

[ufkacbln]

Unless you fiddle the results!

Side impacts in cars are a prime example.

When cars are tested the side impact is at a set height to reflect a collision by passenger car. It has been the same height for many years.

Vehicle manafacturers than use these to advertise how safe the vehicles are.


There are however two problems.

1. The test is no longer representative as every 4x4, SUV and many "utility" vehicles now have a subframe and bumper above this height and simply bypass the vaunted side protection bars.

2. Th test only refers to an adult male dummy, there is no data for smaller drivers, females or children form side impact testing.

In the US work done by the regulatory bodies ( National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ) shows that the chance of a fatal injury is doubled if the other vehicle is an SUV as opposed to a normal passenger car for exactly this reason. Increased femoral, and abdomial injuries are also showing through

They are now coining the wonderful phrase of "Aggressivity" when looking at vehicle.