Has your helmet saved your life poll

[benb]

No i actually wanted an answer as to wether you buy into these stats or just use them as a quotable source?

I could pick at it all day but lets just say a few for now:

.There are FAR more pedestrians than cyclists. In fact every cyclist is also a pedestrian!
.Stats are limited to distance travelled. Is time not a good alternative to this given that the two activities cover vastly different distances.

A more "relevant" stat (couldn't resist) would be the following:

Take the total number of pedestrians and the number of pedestrian deaths. Calculate what % of pedestrians have been killed.
Take the total number of cyclists and the number of cyclist deaths. Calculate what % of cyclists have been killed.

These figures would not be so flattering to your argument.

No matter which way you slice the stats, the result is always that cycling and walking have a broadly similar risk.
If you measure by distance, cycling is a little safer. If you measure by time, walking is a little safer.

But both activities are, in the scheme of things, very safe.

 

[benb]

In fact this is a very good point.

There is inconclusive evidence either way, which is the most foolish?

Making a decision to wear a helmet based on own belief? or
Making a decision not to wear a helmet based on inconclusive evidence?

As per usual, you've got it the wrong way round.

Someone proposes a safety measure or public health intervention. They need to show that it is effective before it is even considered to be implemented.

If I came along and said that I had invented a drug that reduced the risk of a heart attack, but that I had no evidence that it worked, I don't think anyone would argue that people ought to take it anyway "just in case".

 

[Boris Bajic]

I've just entered all the data all of you have supplied into a spreadsheet designed for the purpose.

I then did some calculations with a slide rule and have come to a conclusion that will alarm and upset in equal measure.

You are all wrong. Some of you by as much as 47%.

I am sorry to be the bearer of upsetting news, but you needed to be told.

In order to make my data completely watertight, I need the results of the "Has your helmet failed to save your life?" poll.

I am unable to find them.

 

[srw]

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

Wrong. In general people are terrible at assessing risk. Personal risks are some of the most difficult to assess, and the only way to do it is by starting with a solid appreciation of population statistics.

 

[Licramite]

hey - good news , only 47% wrong , I kept getting told I was 100% wrong

 

[srw]

Statistician - a profession of which Acturaries are a branch.

I think most actuaries might disagree...

(But that really is getting off-topic).

 

[srw]

That has rellevance because?

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

This one would say "make your decision based on a more informed understanding than you are currently evidencing".

 

[david k]

As per usual, you've got it the wrong way round.

Someone proposes a safety measure or public health intervention. They need to show that it is effective before it is even considered to be implemented.

If I came along and said that I had invented a drug that reduced the risk of a heart attack, but that I had no evidence that it worked, I don't think anyone would argue that people ought to take it anyway "just in case".

Morning benb

I don't think you can compare putting a helmet which many recognise as a safety precaution (whether this is correct or not) and a drug recommended by a stranger

This refers to a personal decision, is it any more foolish to wear a helmet based on your own experiences or logic or not to wear one based on stats that you accept are not conclusive?

 

[david k]

This one would say "make your decision based on a more informed understanding than you are currently evidencing".

Why must a personal decision be based on evidence, and not evidence that is clear in any way. Why do you not allow people to make their judgment based on their own logic?

That view could be seen as dictatorial, something you claim not to be in favour of. I would have no issue in you recommending this, but not expecting it.

 

[Alun]

As per usual, you've got it the wrong way round.

Someone proposes a safety measure or public health intervention. They need to show that it is effective before it is even considered to be implemented.

If I came along and said that I had invented a drug that reduced the risk of a heart attack, but that I had no evidence that it worked, I don't think anyone would argue that people ought to take it anyway "just in case".

Do you mean to say that you are unconvinced by the argument that there is no evidence that it will make matters worse?

 

[benb]

Morning benb

I don't think you can compare putting a helmet which many recognise as a safety precaution (whether this is correct or not) and a drug recommended by a stranger

This refers to a personal decision, is it any more foolish to wear a helmet based on your own experiences or logic or not to wear one based on stats that you accept are not conclusive?

The trouble is that most individuals are frankly crap at evaluating risk - especially to themselves, terrible at discounting their own biases, prejudices and filters, and incompetent at coming to a dispassionate evidence-based decision on a lot of things. Now quite often that doesn't matter, and if someone decides to wear a helmet because they feel like it, or it makes them feel safer, then OK. But let's not pretend that their decision has any grounding in the evidence.

I strive to make decisions like this that can be properly informed by evidence in as much of a impartial way as I can.

The evidence that helmets are significantly effective does not exist. In the absence of any reliable evidence showing that helmets are effective, that's all the reason anyone needs for not wearing one. And the same is true with any health intervention; indeed anything that can be tested scientifically.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, never the other way around.

 

[Alun]

Why must a personal decision be based on evidence, and not evidence that is clear in any way. Why do you not allow people to make their judgment based on their own logic?

That view could be seen as dictatorial, something you claim not to be in favour of. I would have no issue in you recommending this, but not expecting it.

You make your judgement as you wish, just don't kid yourself that it's based on logic.

 

[Dan B]

I don't think you can compare putting a helmet which many recognise as a safety precaution (whether this is correct or not) and a drug recommended by a stranger

So you're saying that because lots of people believe something, even though there's no evidence that they're right, the mere fact they believe it makes them more likely to be right than if it were otherwise?

How do you feel about acupuncture, homeopathy, crystal healing, ear candling, astrology? Lots of people believe in them, no good evidence for any of them, should we make everyone do them anyway "just in case"? I'd argue not.

 

[Drago]

The trouble is that most individuals are frankly crap at evaluating risk - especially to themselves, terrible at discounting their own biases, prejudices and filters, and incompetent at coming to a dispassionate evidence-based decision on a lot of things. Now quite often that doesn't matter, and if someone decides to wear a helmet because they feel like it, or it makes them feel safer, then OK. But let's not pretend that their decision has any grounding in the evidence.

I strive to make decisions like this that can be properly informed by evidence in as much of a impartial way as I can.

The evidence that helmets are significantly effective does not exist. In the absence of any reliable evidence showing that helmets are effective, that's all the reason anyone needs for not wearing one. And the same is true with any health intervention; indeed anything that can be tested scientifically.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, never the other way around.

I'm a little confused - 'significantly'? How significant do you think their safety contribution should become before they can be effective?

I'm pretty sure they're not likely to save me from a serious auger. There's a moderate chance they *might* prevent or lessen injuries in minor spill scenarios, and TBH that's significant enough for me because all my spills over the years have been of the minor, relatively slow speed type.

If only use things that are truly effective then a lot of people wouldn't bother with many types of cancer treatment, but they do because some chance is better than none at all, and when you're in a game of chance you play every card in the deck if you're trying to win.

If people don't want to wear helmets, then that's cool. I'm anti compulsion and can see no need for a government to meddle in our lives to that degree. But don't try and justify with arguments about effectiveness, because if the odds are 1 in a thousand that's still better than none at all.

Lets be honest - the majority of non helmet wearers, the millions of regular Joe cyclists who ride from a to b daily without a 2nd thought, who never visit a cycling forum, don't wear lids because the can't be arsed or don't want the expense. He'll, half of them can't even be bothered with lights.

So it's cool. Just be honest and say 'I Simply don't want to' rather than making general statements about effectiveness, because even the tiniest glimmer of chance is better than none.

 

[benb]

Do you mean to say that you are unconvinced by the argument that there is no evidence that it will make matters worse?

I think the evidence that helmets might make matters worse (e.g. by exacerbating rotational injuries or masking concussion) is suggestive, but not compelling, and is such a small effect that you can probably discount it - but it's worth bearing in mind.