Has your helmet saved your life poll

[Pedrosanchezo]

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.

The stats are very different if you factor the amount of pedestrians in relation to the amount of cyclists. A greater % of cyclists will have been killed. I am not really bothered about these stats. Merely trying to show that the stats currently used to show cycling is as dangerous as walking are not realistic. We could go and find the relevant numbers and calculate more accuarate figures if you would like? Or we could just agree that we all have different views, and as long as we are not forcing them on others, allow each to their own.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

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".

So if helmets do become a legal requirement you think it will be with better safety features or someone will manifest evidence proving cycle helmet effectiveness? Just a hypothetical of course.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

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

Then he would be influenced by his own agenda.

 

[benb]

The stats are very different if you factor the amount of pedestrians in relation to the amount of cyclists. A greater % of cyclists will have been killed. I am not really bothered about these stats. Merely trying to show that the stats currently used to show cycling is as dangerous as walking are not realistic. We could go and find the relevant numbers and calculate more accuarate figures if you would like? Or we could just agree that we all have different views, and as long as we are not forcing them on others, allow each to their own.

We could agree that both activities carry a broadly similar risk, and are very safe.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

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.

Have you just discounted yourself from this analysis or can we assume what you have said can be considered all of the above?

I previously mentioned we are ALL allowing or own slant to filter our perspective.

I, like David K, can understand your perspective but strongly oppose this...

" let's not pretend that their decision has any grounding in the evidence".

If you wish to ignore or condemn ALL pro helmet evidence then you simply are not being honest with yourself.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

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

So logic says "do not wear a helmet"? I think logic is a little less black and white.

 

[benb]

So if helmets do become a legal requirement you think it will be with better safety features or someone will manifest evidence proving cycle helmet effectiveness? Just a hypothetical of course.

I can't see that even if a cycle helmet was as effective as a motorcycle helmet, that it would make very much difference, because the risk of a head injury is so small to begin with.

It's a bit like someone suggesting you wear a bulletproof vest. Seeing as you are at a vanishingly small risk of being involved in a shooting, it really doesn't make any difference whether you wear one or not, nor how effective it is.

However, I don't think the people who are pro-compulsion are interested in how effective a cycle helmet is - if they were they would drop their pro-compulsion attitude - so who knows on what basis we might end up with compulsion. Experience thus far suggests that any move towards compulsion won't be based on the evidence.

 

[benb]

Have you just discounted yourself from this analysis or can we assume what you have said can be considered all of the above?

I previously mentioned we are ALL allowing or own slant to filter our perspective.

I, like David K, can understand your perspective but strongly oppose this...

" let's not pretend that their decision has any grounding in the evidence".

If you wish to ignore or condemn ALL pro helmet evidence then you simply are not being honest with yourself.

I said I strive to remove my filters and prejudices. It's not always easy, and I'm not perfect.

Taking the whole body of evidence, which is what we must do in science, we can see that the effectiveness of helmets is unproven.

Would it interest you to know that I used to always wear a helmet, because I though that it stood to reason that they must be of some effectiveness in reducing injuries. Otherwise why would they be sold? Then I looked at the evidence, which showed that they do not significantly affect your chances of a head injury. Seeing as I found cycling much more pleasurable without, I decided helmets were unnecessary.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

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.

This shows perfectly how biased you are being. You are saying here that there is suggestive evidence which show helmets "might make matters worse" though not compelling so "probably discount it - but it's worth bearing mind".

You talk about cycle helmets as if they are of no use to anyone with a logical mind. Yet you are willing to "bear in mind" the possibility of an injury, caused by a helmet, based on very little evidence??

If you could at least admit that some evidence shows a helmet can be effective (to some extent) then we could discard the notion that helmet users do not base their decision on logic.

 

[Alun]

So if helmets do become a legal requirement you think it will be with better safety features or someone will manifest evidence proving cycle helmet effectiveness? Just a hypothetical of course.

No !
Congratulations on getting the 1000th post

 

[Theseus]

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.

Only 13,983,700 more tickets to buy to win £5,000,000

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

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.

I understand it very well. I also don't base my decisions on AVERAGE risk. I base it on my life which is individual. This allows me to pinpoint risk rather than guess at it based on averages.

Also understand that whilst the risk of injury to a cyclist is more likely than winning the lottery, i am betting a great number on here actually do play the lottery but don't wear a helmet. Again we are using the stats to justify our decisions.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

No !
Congratulations on getting the 1000th post

A prize? How about a shiny new helmet?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

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.

"In general". Sums it up really.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

I can't see that even if a cycle helmet was as effective as a motorcycle helmet, that it would make very much difference, because the risk of a head injury is so small to begin with.

It's a bit like someone suggesting you wear a bulletproof vest. Seeing as you are at a vanishingly small risk of being involved in a shooting, it really doesn't make any difference whether you wear one or not, nor how effective it is.

However, I don't think the people who are pro-compulsion are interested in how effective a cycle helmet is - if they were they would drop their pro-compulsion attitude - so who knows on what basis we might end up with compulsion. Experience thus far suggests that any move towards compulsion won't be based on the evidence.

Wearing a helmet to protect your head is in no way akin to wearing a bullet proof vest. That's just silly.
We like silliness but not that much. Much to much. Much much too much.