Has your helmet saved your life poll

[benb]

so if you cannot prove they dont work, those who wear them cannot prove they do, what is it you want?

I want people to stop trying to imply that people should wear helmets "just in case" when the evidence that they are effective is lacking.

 

[benb]

So you made your decision based on preferring not to wear one

Yet you don't support my decision for wearing one as I prefer to

No, I made my decision on the basis that the evidence showed that they were not significantly effective, and I preferred not to.

You're right, I don't support your reasons for wearing one, but I do support your right to wear one.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Some evidence also shows that prayer is an effective treatment for cancer. And that homoeopathic medicines are a more effective treatment than a placebo.

This kind of applies to both sides as there is no concrete evidence. All it shows is that "evidence" can be interpreted in many different ways.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

I want people to stop trying to imply that people should wear helmets "just in case" when the evidence that they are effective is lacking.

I drove the main roads to work today. I usually go the back road, as it's quicker, but thought there was a slight chance it could be icy. So i ended up going the main road, just in case.
Risk assessment.

 

[benb]

This is just not true. There is stacks of evidence out there, pro and con. Putting "significantly" in that sentence is very sneaky. Even for you.

As Drago, David K and i have said - ANY contribution a helmet may offer is better than none. On that LOGICAL basis we may choose to wear a helmet.

It's really not. And what do you mean by "even for me". For someone who is the first to criticise people for getting personal, you're pretty quick to dish it out.

There is not stacks of evidence out there, and the total body of evidence is clear that wearing a helmet does not significantly effect your chances of a head injury.

Significantly is the crucial word, so in what way is it sneaky? I've always said that there may be a handful of limited circumstances where a helmet might help you, but that the risk is so low that the odds of that happening are not statistically significant.

 

[benb]

This kind of applies to both sides as there is no concrete evidence. All it shows is that "evidence" can be interpreted in many different ways.

You can't prove a negative.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

[QUOTE 2192962, member: 1314"]They can read the UCL study itself instead of the newspaper article then.

Researchers from UCL have found that cycling is safer than driving for young males, with 17 to 20 year old drivers facing almost five times greater risk per hour than cyclists of the same age.

The researchers looked at hospital admissions and deaths in England between 2007 and 2009 for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. These were studied by age-group and sex. The research is published in the journal PLOS ONE - here is the data:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0050606

“What we found is that risks were similar for men aged between 21 and 49 for all three modes of transport [walking, cycling, driving] and for female pedestrians and drivers aged 21 and 69 years,” said lead author Dr Jennifer Mindell (UCL Epidemiology & Public Health). “However, we found that for young male cyclists between 17 and 20 years of age, cycling was markedly safer than travelling by car."[/quote]
Similar research has been done RE pro helmet. I've posted some of it already but found there was no point pursuing as it was repeatedly shot down by those who only wish t believe their own argument.

 

[benb]

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.

It's a piece of safety equipment to protect against something that is extremely rare.

Wearing a helmet is not going to significantly protect you against serious head injuries because you're vanishingly unlikely to suffer one.
Wearing a bulletproof vest is not going to significantly protect you against gunshot wounds because you're vanishingly unlikely to suffer one.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

It's really not. And what do you mean by "even for me". For someone who is the first to criticise people for getting personal, you're pretty quick to dish it out.

There is not stacks of evidence out there, and the total body of evidence is clear that wearing a helmet does not significantly effect your chances of a head injury.

Significantly is the crucial word, so in what way is it sneaky? I've always said that there may be a handful of limited circumstances where a helmet might help you, but that the risk is so low that the odds of that happening are not statistically significant.

I have a silly sense of humour. It is/was not implied as an insult. Sneaky was meant to come across as cheeky and overly clever.

Significant is crucial. It is very much a variable dependent on perspective.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

It's a piece of safety equipment to protect against something that is extremely rare.

Wearing a helmet is not going to significantly protect you against serious head injuries because you're vanishingly unlikely to suffer one.
Wearing a bulletproof vest is not going to significantly protect you against gunshot wounds because you're vanishingly unlikely to suffer one.

Might get Kevlar as it looks better. Thats how i base all my helmet purchases.

 

[david k]

Go to PM then with your chosen correspondant. You posted on an open forum, so I responded to the question as asked.

Live with it.

No need to get angry. I was simply pointing something out something that needed clarification.

You responded to a point I made, my point was in reference to why I wear a helmet. Your response referred to being told to wear a helmet. Therefore it was irrelevant.

Had I not pointed out this error, people may have made the incorrect assumption that my original point corrosponded to your response, leaving me no option but to clear this up.

 

[david k]

Motorsport drivers wear them. There's no evidence to say they wouldn't help

feel free to hold the belief that they would be a worthy safety precaution for young drivers, I dont share your belief

 

[benb]

I have a silly sense of humour. It is/was not implied as an insult. Sneaky was meant to come across as cheeky and overly clever.

It didn't work!

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

[QUOTE 2193001, member: 1314"]As you're not engaging thoughtfully I'm offski.[/quote]
I have looked at it. I appreciate the post. I perceive the risk of cycling to be significant enough to justify a helmet.
Also i was serious. I have posted some information which show similar findings for the pro helmet camp. It's not easy as i have gone over this point lots. TBH it's a over tiring conversation and i find i should be doing something more fun on a Friday. I bet thats where you are off to? Somewhere more fun.

 

[benb]

feel free to hold the belief that they would be a worthy safety precaution for young drivers, I dont share your belief

The last thing we need is more safety equipment for young male drivers - they are reckless enough as it is.
I think we should install a metal spike in the steering wheel - that would reduce RTCs significantly - FACT!