Has your helmet saved your life poll

[benb]

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.

Significantly, as in statistically detectable. I don't really care whether a helmet would save me from a cut or scrape, or other non-serious injury. I care about whether it has a detectable effect at reducing serious head injury. The evidence shows that they do not significantly effect your chance at sustaining a head injury.

 

[david k]

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.

I never mentioned 'lots of people' I was referring to my own decision or another persons own decision, it is their right to make their choice as they see fit, something you claim to support and then continually question, freedom of choice.

If somebody believes in acupuncture then they believe in acupuncture, I wouldn't insist they are making a mistake due to having no sound evidence to base their judgement on and that they must justify their decision.

It would be hypocritical for anyone to insist on helmet wearers to justify why they wear a helmet and then not expect people who acupuncture without also expecting them to consider lots of evidence before making their decision and then justify it using data

 

[david k]

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

Wearing a helmet isnt making a claim though, its simply wearing a helmet.

 

[david k]

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

no kidding Allun, its is logical to me, just as I presume not wearing is logical to you and Id support you own decision based on this.

However,

If your one of the people who insist you cannot make any judgement for yourself without referring to stats and evidence I cannot think of anything more strange than not being able to have your own mind. And if this leads you to decide that you dont wear a helmet why do you use data to support that decision when it is widely recognised that the data in inconclusive.

I consider it more foolish to base a decision on flawed data than my own judgement

 

[david k]

The problem with it is that when we put on helmets we are making a visual statement that cycling is a dangerous activity, which the figures contradict.

To any significant extent?

On the flip side, could it not be argued that people considering the activity to have dangers they would approach it in a sensible manner? Thinking there are no dangers at all to cycling down the road could lead to new riders making poor judgements could it not?

 

[Alun]

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.

I was referring to your anti heart attack drug

 

[benb]

I was referring to your anti heart attack drug

Oh, righto.

 

[david k]

david k said: ↑

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.
.

The post did not refer to public health intervention, it referred to, as you can see, making a decision to wear a helmet or not

 

[Alun]

no kidding Allun, its is logical to me, just as I presume not wearing is logical to you and Id support you own decision based on this.

However,

If your one of the people who insist you cannot make any judgement for yourself without referring to stats and evidence I cannot think of anything more strange than not being able to have your own mind. And if this leads you to decide that you dont wear a helmet why do you use data to support that decision when it is widely recognised that the data in inconclusive.

I consider it more foolish to base a decision on flawed data than my own judgement

Which data is flawed?

 

[StuartG]

I think most actuaries might disagree....

Surgeons don't like being called doctors either

 

[david k]

Which data is flawed?

it is generally accepted on here that the data is no conclusive, theefore i would say it is flawed if it claims to suggest one thing or another yet it cant

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Pedro - you missed my point. You only die once. Something will get you in the end. I'm a cyclist but the chances of dying falling from my bike are very small with or without helmet.

Whereas the chances of me dying falling down the stairs are much greater. This could realistically be reduced if I wore a helmet. But I don't and neither do you. Its a risk we are both willing to take. Yet you have a problem with using what is unlikely to protect you from a lower risk to your life. Double Bammy.

If we can assume no one wears a helmet whilst walking then i am still reducing the odds of injury (in my life) wearing a helmet cycling. With this logic in mind, If you do not wear a helmet in either walking or cycling, then surely the overall odds of injury would be greater to some extent. Therefor if i wear a helmet cycling i am reducing the risk.

 

[benb]

it is generally accepted on here that the data is no conclusive, theefore i would say it is flawed if it claims to suggest one thing or another yet it cant

How many times do we have to tell you "you can't prove a negative".

The evidence is not flawed - it shows quite clearly that helmets do no significantly reduce your risk of a head injury.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

So what? The statistics are per mile. The only effect on them of their being more pedestrians is that the number for pedestrian deaths may be more accurate, not that it'll be bigger or smaller

Depends what you want to measure. If I want to know whether it's safer to walk to work or ride there, per mile is a better bet as I travel the same distance either way. If I want to know how to spend an hour of leisure time, per hour is better. To get per-hour times, if you need them, you could probably do worse than multiply the cycling stat by 3.5 or 4

But that's all a red herring. Given that you can expect to get killed, on average, once every 30 million miles of cycling - probably less often if you're a decent cyclist with some training or some traffic awareness or some miles under your belt - and that it's a long way from certain that wearing a cycle helmet will even save you from that if you *are* otherwise destined for a casket - why the obsession with helmets? I'd much rather change the odds of hitting the road in the first place

No obsession with helmets. Just tired of hearing the reasons i don't need one.

Those stats are just not practical i am afraid. Unless you think that, of the cyclists killed, all of them had cycled equal or more than 30 million miles individually.

 

[benb]

No obsession with helmets. Just tired of hearing the reasons i don't need one.

Those stats are just not practical i am afraid. Unless you think that, of the cyclists killed, all of them had cycled equal or more than 30 million miles individually.

Wow, you really don't understand average risks, do you? By your logic no-one could ever win the lottery until they had played it 13,983,816 times.