Deaths when not using helmet

[ufkacbln]

The original post is disingenuous as it missed out all the "riders and qualifications" from the original tables, such as the fact that head injury could not be confirmed as the cause in all cases.

I linked to the original site on page 2 - please read the original and the authority and accuracy of the OP is severely compromised.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

contradiction, i went searching and couldnt find any? yet my op suggests otherwise, do you follow? i guess not

Your OP was IMHO either a deliberate attempt to leave off the caveats or you simply grabbed something that fell in line with your beliefs and in your eagerness you failed to realise the caveats destroyed your argument. Based on dealings with flathelmeters in the past ,my money is on the former, but I would love to be proved wrong.

 

[Red Light]

contradiction, i went searching and couldnt find any? yet my op suggests otherwise, do you follow? i guess not

What exactly do you think your OP is evidence of and why?

 

[david k]

like it says, from total deaths how many were and how many were not wearing helmets

 

[Angelfishsolo]

like it says, from total deaths how many were and how many were not wearing helmets

Yes but it left out some vital information such as what injuries they died from. Eg death from a punctured lung would have no bearing on wearing a helmet or not.

 

[david k]

wouldnt that average out though?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

wouldnt that average out though?

That makes no sense in anx way at all. In what way do you think unfiltered data will average itself out?

 

[david k]

people wearing or not wearing can die from something not head related,

dont get me wrong, numerous things have questioned this evidence, thats fine, it is not my evidence but i posted it as it did appear interesting, i did ask for peoples thoughts, im happy to accept views either way

 

[Red Light]

like it says, from total deaths how many were and how many were not wearing helmets

So you reckon Ford Fiestas are the most dangerous cars on the roads in Britain? After all there are more Ford Fiestas involved in crashes than any other make.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

So you reckon Ford Fiestas are the most dangerous cars on the roads in Britain? After all there are more Ford Fiestas involved in crashes than any other make.

Is that right? It used to be Red Cars iirc.

 

[dellzeqq]

wouldnt that average out though?

stop. Think. People have been stating the obvious for umpteen pages. If the number of deaths from head injuries is small then it follow that the percentage of deaths divided helmet/non-helmet is really not that important - and that's before you get to the proportion of cyclists in total wearing helmets. You've demonstrated nothing - your op is neither here nor there - in fact the most correct response would have been 'whatever'.

 

[benb]

Here's the problem as I see it.

The majority of people who have decided not to wear a helmet started from the position that helmets must do something. They just must. Then, when they examined the evidence, they found that there was no evidence that cycle helmets reduced head injuries. Furthermore, that cycle helmets may in fact increase injuries. The decision not to wear a helmet is a rational decision based on the available facts.

The majority of people who do wear helmets are not fully informed or aware of the evidence. Like the first group, they assume that helmets must have a protective effect, but have not been made aware of the evidence that shows this not to be the case. This is not an irrational decision, but it is not fully informed.

There is a minority of people who have looked at or been shown the evidence, but nevertheless insist that helmets have a protective effect - usually along the lines of "I crashed, my helmet split. If it wasn't for the helmet my head would have split for sure." These people are holding an irrational faith-based position, and we have had people say as much - something along the lines of "I don't care what the evidence says, I will always believe that helmets are protective, and no matter what evidence I am shown, I will never change my mind"

Now if the first group were not under the constant background threat of prohibition, it wouldn't matter so much. But we have real examples of creeping prohibition:
-training courses (which definitely do have a protective effect) being denied to people who do not wish to wear a helmet
-many sportives and other events now state that a helmet is mandatory
-lobby groups and some politicians proposing legislation to make helmets mandatory

There is no prospect of helmets being banned, none. So the people in groups 2 and 3 will always be free to exercise their choice (whether that choice is informed or not) to wear a helmet, but the people in group 1 are always having to justify their choice, as if they are the irrational ones!

Now if you want to wear a helmet, that's up to you, but you cannot pretend the evidence shows them to be effective, and if you make claims that cannot be backed up, expect to be challenged on it - because these are exactly the same claims that compulsionists use, and they need to be challenged wherever they are made.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Here's the problem as I see it.

The majority of people who have decided not to wear a helmet started from the position that helmets must do something. They just must. Then, when they examined the evidence, they found that there was no evidence that cycle helmets reduced head injuries. Furthermore, that cycle helmets may in fact increase injuries. The decision not to wear a helmet is a rational decision based on the available facts.

The majority of people who do wear helmets are not fully informed or aware of the evidence. Like the first group, they assume that helmets must have a protective effect, but have not been made aware of the evidence that shows this not to be the case. This is not an irrational decision, but it is not fully informed.

There is a minority of people who have looked at or been shown the evidence, but nevertheless insist that helmets have a protective effect - usually along the lines of "I crashed, my helmet split. If it wasn't for the helmet my head would have split for sure." These people are holding an irrational faith-based position, and we have had people say as much - something along the lines of "I don't care what the evidence says, I will always believe that helmets are protective, and no matter what evidence I am shown, I will never change my mind"

Now if the first group were not under the constant background threat of prohibition, it wouldn't matter so much. But we have real examples of creeping prohibition:
-training courses (which definitely do have a protective effect) being denied to people who do not wish to wear a helmet
-many sportives and other events now state that a helmet is mandatory
-lobby groups and some politicians proposing legislation to make helmets mandatory

There is no prospect of helmets being banned, none. So the people in groups 2 and 3 will always be free to exercise their choice (whether that choice is informed or not) to wear a helmet, but the people in group 1 are always having to justify their choice, as if they are the irrational ones!

Now if you want to wear a helmet, that's up to you, but you cannot pretend the evidence shows them to be effective, and if you make claims that cannot be backed up, expect to be challenged on it - because these are exactly the same claims that compulsionists use, and they need to be challenged wherever they are made.

I think that this is the most well reasoned post thus far.

My reason for wearing a helmet has changed lately. When I was on the MTB my speeds were low and the changes of hitting my head on sharp objects et al high. Since I have been road riding my speeds are higher and teh chances of my head meeting sharp objects lower. However, when I don't wear a helmet I feel wrong and as such spend time thinking about the lack of helmet. This detracts from the amount of thought I give to the road and I feel I am riding in a more dangerous manner. Thus I keep wearing a helmet, not because I believe it will protect my head at 25+mph but because I can spend more time concentrating on my environment.

 

[twobiker]

I wear gloves in case I fall off, they cut down on the road rash, personel experience x2 ,I wear sunglasses for eye protection, a wasp etc at speed is pretty terminal,personel experience again, I also wear a helmet ,why?, I don't know, I sweat , its noisy ,its hot , doesn't stop the sun burn, and fallen off twice and not hit the helmet on the floor once, I also have life insurance , but I am not intending to die yet . it weighs sod all though so what the heck I wear it.

 

[david k]

I wear gloves in case I fall off, they cut down on the road rash, personel experience x2 ,I wear sunglasses for eye protection, a wasp etc at speed is pretty terminal,personel experience again, I also wear a helmet ,why?, I don't know, I sweat , its noisy ,its hot , doesn't stop the sun burn, and fallen off twice and not hit the helmet on the floor once, I also have life insurance , but I am not intending to die yet . it weighs sod all though so what the heck I wear it.

Where is your evidence that wearing gloves cuts down raod rash? this is just your opinion and not an informed one. People like you must be challenged as without hard evidence to back up your claims we could have glove wearing compulsion