Has your helmet saved your life poll

[StuartG]

no one up to now has stated whether they have any specialist knowledge on the subject.

Do not overstate it. My expertise is in a different field of statistics. It helps I can read statistical papers - or rather read papers containing bicycling statistics. These are typically produced by well meaning doctors or cycling activists and sadly the statistics are used there to support a viewpoint rather than inform it. You can Google to find the howlers made by both sides.

It is easier to point out flaws then actually determine what truth there may be. The fact that AFAIK there has been no definitive paper by a leading Statistician says something. IMHO the something is:

1) Any benefits/disbenefits may be small (money and reputations are about coming up with solid claims)
2) Creating a suitable model to test is extremely difficult
3) How holistic should the issue be assessed (is it just personal head injuries or the total effect on cycling and the nation's health)

There are easier ways to gain fame and fortune

 

[benb]

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.

Yes, that's fair.
I don't see how it's possible, assuming you're sane, for normal everyday cycling to be significantly more likely to result in a head injury than walking.

 

[Alun]

Yes, that's fair.
I don't see how it's possible, assuming you're sane, for normal everyday cycling to be significantly more likely to result in a head injury than walking.

I'm beginning to question your assumption.

 

[david k]

. It's just the pro-compulsion lobby choose to ignore anything that doesn't fir with their views.

but we are not talking about the pro-compulsion lobby, we are talking about personal preference.

Why must those who wish to question helmets always refer to compulsion? The only reason I can think of is to justify questioning of somebodys own decision, as without it they have nothing

 

[david k]

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.

Hello Allun, I think the point is as, its somebodys own decision do they need statsevidence to make that judgement?

I suspect the decision is based on what makes sense to them as you would apply what makes sense to you. If you feel the need to check evidence prior to this decision then thats fine, but it must also be fine for people to make their own judgments, which I believe is something you wish to promote, freedom of choice.

Most non helmet wearers become frustrated at having to justify their decision, this should work both ways.

 

[Crackle]

It is easier to point out flaws then actually determine what truth there may be. The fact that AFAIK there has been no definitive paper by a leading Statistician says something. IMHO the something is:

1) Any benefits/disbenefits may be small (money and reputations are about coming up with solid claims)
2) Creating a suitable model to test is extremely difficult
3) How holistic should the issue be assessed (is it just personal head injuries or the total effect on cycling and the nation's health)

A pretty good summary if you ask me.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

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.

I just don't believe i need to compare myself to the average cyclist in order to make a safety decision solely based on my life.

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

Not neccessarily

In a poll by "MAX Power" Magazine a few years ago, some 85% of their readers rated themselves as either above average or well above average drivers.

Now funnily enough when the passengers of these vehicles were asked the same questions only some 30% classed the driver as above average.

In this case who is the better judge of the risks that driver is taking?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

I'm beginning to question your assumption.

Play nice Alun. I have expressed my opinions like everyone else. Just because you and a few "ignored" others don't agree doesn't mean i am lacking sanity.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Not neccessarily

In a poll by "MAX Power" Magazine a few years ago, some 85% of their readers rated themselves as either above average or well above average drivers.

Now funnily enough when the passengers of these vehicles were asked the same questions only some 30% classed the driver as above average.

In this case who is the better judge of the risks that driver is taking?

The passenger at least has some real life experience regarding the drivers abilities. He was there!
What does the passenger represent in my situation? At best it could be someone cycling with me. Most certainly not people chatting to me on this forum or a statistician.

 

[StuartG]

The thing people do care about is the potential disaster of compulsion.

I suspect that while we still have some sensible people in Transport and the Home Office it will be continued to be kicked into the long grass. A backbencher can dream and say what they want but as soon as it becomes a government bill then people are going to start asking the CSO & CMO difficult questions. To wit the answer is likely to be that much greater benefit to safety can be had by building decent cycling infrastructure or more effectively policing the road (viz another war on the motorist). Those expensive words are death if a Treasury man is listening. A deeper death than any Cement Mixer can inflict.

 

[ufkacbln]

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

WHich I am afraid demonstrates the biggest ofthe flaws with helmets as a safety device.

In any other field of safety they use of protective equipment is the last resort, not the first.

If you keep on falling off - follow the standard heirarchy and see what is happeming, why it is happening, and how it can be prevented.

Only if you are satisfired that your cycling technique is above reproach and there is absolutely nothingthath can be improved through control, equipment or training should helmets be considered.

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.

Again the resort to emotional blackmail.....

 

[Crackle]

Again that's your view. I assess myslef being more at risk on a bike. I am probably best placed to do so.

I don't, comparative risk tells me so too but I do assess the consequence of the risk to be greater, after all, my centre of gravity is higher and I'm moving four or five times faster. But is my actual risk mitigated by wearing a helmet?

Comparative risk also tells me I shouldn't take up cave diving, very useful, comparative risk.

 

[ufkacbln]

The passenger at least has some real life experience regarding the drivers abilities. He was there!

The driver was also there, one presumes if the car is moving, and has the same real life experience - shame the two interpretations are polar opposites!



[/quote]What does the passenger represent in my situation? At best it could be someone cycling with me. Most certainly not people chatting to me on this forum or a statistician.[/quote]

The point is that it demonstrates that the person evaluating their own risk is not always the best person if they already have preconceptions or are inherent risk takers.

 

[StuartG]

At best it could be someone cycling with me. Most certainly not people chatting to me on this forum or a statistician.

One of the disappointments of life is people are generally less exceptional than they imagine.

I mean you just might be a eunuch but otherwise I'd bet on a quack's estimate of your prostate cancer risks than your good self. It isn't that they just know the averages but the pertinent factors to ask which would significantly move you away from the median. Same applies to actuaries assessing your car or bike crash chances. You misunderstand if you think I'm telling you what these chances are. Only that you are probably not the best judge on your own ...