Has your helmet saved your life poll

[Pedrosanchezo]

If you really believe that a helmet is necessary when cycling but not when doing other everyday activities, then that's up to you (even though the evidence suggests you're wrong)

Your view on the evidence suggest i am wrong. Once again hardly conclusive based on generic stats. Who could possibly assess how often i walk, where i walk and if i walk on the path or down the central reservation? Who could tell if i ride my bike like a maniac or if i am totally incompetent on a bike? Maybe i am one of the most confident and safest bike riders in the world?
The only person who could assess that would be me! Not some stat that covers the entire population.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Would that be conditional probability? Look unless you have researched this well as some here have done - you have no clue as to what the risks are. Peoples perception of risk is very often at variance to reality. By all means modify the risk with relevant personal and demographic factors. But unless you start from a solid foundation it is pointless.

How would you know i am not starting from a solid foundation? Because you disagree? Other don't. Are they wrong?

I have more clue than you regarding the risks involved in my life. I choose to make a far more informed decision than you, or anyone else ,could for me.

 

[Alun]

Your view on the evidence suggest i am wrong. Once again hardly conclusive based on generic stats. Who could possibly assess how often i walk, where i walk and if i walk on the path or down the central reservation? Who could tell if i ride my bike like a maniac or if i am totally incompetent on a bike? Maybe i am one of the most confident and safest bike riders in the world?
The only person who could assess that would be me! Not some stat that covers the entire population.

How would you know if you were "one of the most confident and safest bike riders in the world?"
Don't 85% of motorists think that they are above average at driving?

 

[StuartG]

I have more clue than you regarding the risks involved in my life.

Would you say that to an Actuary?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

... and how many were car drivers wanting cycists to be better protected when they hit them?

Without a demographic breakdown of the transport modes used it is really not that valuable a statistic

That is one of the reasons why compulsion is not a brilliant idea. It is shiftingthe responsinbility fom not injuring a cyclist to the cyclist being responsible for protecting themselves from the injury you just caused.

As Meier Hillman once suggested, the best thing we could do for cyclist safety is to divert the money, effort and publicity spent in trying to enforce helmets into the far more effective training of road users

[/quote][/quote]

Whilst i agree it is slightly biased.

"and how many were car drivers wanting cycists to be better protected when they hit them?". No one can know that.


"Without a demographic breakdown of the transport modes used it is really not that valuable a statistic"
There has not been a single undesputable stat on this thread. Some seem to think certain stats are irrelevant or "not that valuable". Some stats are touted as gospil.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

How would you know if you were "one of the most confident and safest bike riders in the world?"
Don't 85% of motorists think that they are above average at driving?

I don't know but again i am unsure how that relates to my position. I think we could find another 500 similar stats that would prove nothing in terms of risk in my given situation.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Would you say that to an Actuary?

That has rellevance because?

Though do you think they would say "Don't wear a helmet"?

 

[Alun]

Pedro, Do you feel that you are more likely or less likely than the average Perthshire cyclist to be involved in a serious cycling accident?

 

[StuartG]

That has rellevance because?

Acturaries are generally considered to be the experts of risks that could affect your life. And they are firmly evidence based. So do you know better?

Though do you think they would say "Don't wear a helmet"?

Well, if you haven't guessed Pedro, I'm a Statistician - a profession of which Acturaries are a branch. And I can tell you the consensus in the statistical world is that it can't be determined with any degree of confidence that helmets are a help or a hindrance. That's where I am coming from. I try and ride safely. If the evidence was that helmets would be a significant benefit I would wear one. No problem.

If the evidence were to show they were a hindrance - would you leave yours at home?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Pedro, Do you feel that you are more likely or less likely than the average Perthshire cyclist to be involved in a serious cycling accident?

The "average cyclist" is a pretty vague term isn't it. I could not possibly know the answer to that. Even if i did know the answer they would still have to do their own risk assessment which would have no bearing on my own results.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Acturies are generally considered to be the experts of risks that could affect your life. And they are firmly evidence based. So do you know better?

Well, if you haven't guessed Pedro, I'm a Statistician - a profession of which Acturaries are a branch. And I can tell you the consensus in the statistical world is that it can't be determined with any degree of confidence that helmets are a help or a hindrance. That's where I am coming from. I try and ride safely. If the evidence was that helmets would be a significant benefit I would wear one. No problem.

If the evidence were to show they were a hindrance - would you leave yours at home?

I answered already. They are experts. Also agreed. If they risk assess 1000 people they will absolutely prove why they are experts.
They still in no way could calculate the risk in my life better than i could unless i gave them every little detail. The stats showing pedestrians as even, or more at risk, to cyclists were generic.

I tend to trust my own judgement when it comes to my own life. Why put the ownes on someone else?

 

[Alun]

The "average cyclist" is a pretty vague term isn't it. I could not possibly know the answer to that. Even if i did know the answer they would still have to do their own risk assessment which would have no bearing on my own results.

It is vague I'm afraid, but the "average"( for want of a better term) cyclist has a very small chance of being involved in a serious accident.
If you can't possibly know whether you are at more risk or less risk, then how do you assess your need to wear a helmet?
I don't mind whether you wear one or not, just interested in how you arrive at that decision.

 

[Alun]

There was a lot more to my original post but regarding this section yes i agree that many motorists who are not cyclists may have an interest in protecting themselves. From i legal standpoint i take it a cyclist doesn't have much chance if he/she sustains a head injury in a traffic related accident?

Actually, the courts have ruled that not wearing a helmet is not 'contributory negligence' on the part of cyclists, so you'd be wrong...

I think the reason for this is that cycle helmets are not designed or tested to be effective in collisions with other vehicles, or at speeds higher than 12mph. The courts probably think that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the helmetless cyclist contributed to their own injuries.

 

[Licramite]

Acturaries are generally considered to be the experts of risks that could affect your life. And they are firmly evidence based. So do you know better?

Well, if you haven't guessed Pedro, I'm a Statistician - a profession of which Acturaries are a branch. And I can tell you the consensus in the statistical world is that it can't be determined with any degree of confidence that helmets are a help or a hindrance. That's where I am coming from. I try and ride safely. If the evidence was that helmets would be a significant benefit I would wear one. No problem.

If the evidence were to show they were a hindrance - would you leave yours at home?

That is a jolly good point - no one up to now has stated whether they have any specialist knowledge on the subject. Which obviously lends weight to what they say. Most of us decide on personnel experience and reading the research that confirms our already made up minds. - if your honest- (boy am I going some flack for that one !)

so what Stuart is saying is the advantage of helmets is unknown from a statical point, so it comes back to personnel experience and pre-disposition.

my experience from bangs on the head, of which I have had an unfair number, with and without helmets, lends me towards helmets -
Its personnel experience of yourself or a close friend or relative that forms your real opinion. - a guy getting knocked of and hitting his head and dying in Sheffield will have sod all real impact, it happening to your brother, will.

and before you bore the arse of us by saying - and pedestrians? - its the same, a guy getting run down in Glasgow on a zebra crossing will have no impact, your mate getting run down may make you more cautious in the future - it may not of course, after all its not going to happen to me is it.

 

[Alun]

I understand that. I don't think Pedrosanchezo has a clue what he is babbling on about...

I had to fiddle with the quote unquote marks get them to work. This seems to have attributed Pedrosanchezo's thoughts to you. Apologies for that!
I was just trying to enhance your point!