Helmet saved my life yesterday

[Red Light]

Actually no.

There was a very major 21 year research study by the University of New South Wales released within the past ten days or so that indicated the use of helmets had brought about a statistically significant drop in head injuries

If you want to read the study the correct link for it is http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:10700/SOURCE01

Its a particularly poor study. They measure the cyclist head injuries per 100,000 population - a rather useless measure as it takes no account of variations in the level of cycling in the population over the 21 years. They do sort of recognise this problem but since they don't have the data on the level of cycling (although I don't know why as the data is available), they use the number of bikes imported into Australia each year as a measure of the level of cycling taking place. Which misses the fact that most bikes sold are used once or twice and then left to rust in the shed and that most cyclists are riding bikes that were not bought this year. So the end results that they come up with are pretty close to meaningless but they do support the authors preconceptions, the main author being, you guessed it, from the Land of the Helmet Cult, the USA.

 

[RedRider]

Anyone for disco?

Last night a helmet saved my life
Last night a helmet saved my life, yeah

 

[pubrunner]

Have you never done this?

Not yet, but then, I do very little cycling.

 

[trampyjoe]

That most bizarre thing you've ever heard is Darwinism. If you are not a believer in Darwinism but prefer Intelligent Design then the answer is God designed it that way from the beginning being the smart person She is.

I couldn't give a monkeys (see what i did there?) if you wear a helmet or not but please don't use evolutionary theory and Darwinism incorrectly. There are hoats that have evolved to go ridgid and 'faint' as a defence mechanism (you may have seen the fainting goats on youtube.. If not i implore you, go look for them now, you will not regret it) yet they have not evolved broad shoulders to stop them hitting their heads. There are countless other animals that do not have broad shoulders yet could be prone to hitting their heads (but i'm on my phone and its late so can't be arsed to back this statement up). Humans have broad shoulders for balance and to fit the organs in.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Anyone for disco?

Last night a helmet saved my life
Last night a helmet saved my life, yeah

Well said RedRider: this was meant to be a fun thread, it's been taken over by the usual statistic fixated mob (Red Light & Co ) ... I hate numbers guess I'm statistically challenged!
Anyhow, my helmet saved me from a head cold tonight: the thing was covered with frost by the time I got home

 

[Red Light]

I couldn't give a monkeys (see what i did there?) if you wear a helmet or not but please don't use evolutionary theory and Darwinism incorrectly. There are hoats that have evolved to go ridgid and 'faint' as a defence mechanism (you may have seen the fainting goats on youtube.. If not i implore you, go look for them now, you will not regret it) yet they have not evolved broad shoulders to stop them hitting their heads. There are countless other animals that do not have broad shoulders yet could be prone to hitting their heads (but i'm on my phone and its late so can't be arsed to back this statement up). Humans have broad shoulders for balance and to fit the organs in.

Perhaps if we had bipedal goats evolution would have developed them differently.

 

[newfhouse]

Perhaps if we had bipedal goats evolution would have developed them differently.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/anthropologists-trace-human-origins-back-to-one-la,19191/

 

[hoopdriver]

If you want to read the study the correct link for it is http://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/fapi/datastream/unsworks:10700/SOURCE01

Its a particularly poor study. They measure the cyclist head injuries per 100,000 population - a rather useless measure as it takes no account of variations in the level of cycling in the population over the 21 years. They do sort of recognise this problem but since they don't have the data on the level of cycling (although I don't know why as the data is available), they use the number of bikes imported into Australia each year as a measure of the level of cycling taking place. Which misses the fact that most bikes sold are used once or twice and then left to rust in the shed and that most cyclists are riding bikes that were not bought this year. So the end results that they come up with are pretty close to meaningless but they do support the authors preconceptions, the main author being, you guessed it, from the Land of the Helmet Cult, the USA.

It was a particularly rigorous study and well thought out. It happened to arrive at conclusions some people dislike and find inconvenient. Had these same researchers, working along these same parameters, arrived at the conclusion that helmets were of no use, or even a liability, they would have been lauded to the skies as beacons of common sense and intellectual rigour.

It is called shooting the messenger.

I am not for compulsory helmet laws, but I think the argument against it should be based on libertarian grounds not a complete denial of risk and a lot of absurdist rationalisation. Argue on libertarian grounds and I think you would have a very solid unified block of cyclists as a cohort.

 

[Red Light]

It was a particularly rigorous study and well thought out. It happened to arrive at conclusions some people dislike and find inconvenient. Had these same researchers, working along these same parameters, arrived at the conclusion that helmets were of no use, or even a liability, they would have been lauded to the skies as beacons of common sense and intellectual rigour.

Then you clearly have no experience of research evaluation and what a rigorous and well thought out study looks like. Let me ask you this. Do you think that the UK is a much better and safer place to cycle than the Netherlands? Because measured in cyclist injuries per 100,000 population (the measure used in this study) the Netherlands is many times worse than the UK [1]. And then using the methodology of this study we can say the reason the Netherlands is so much more dangerous a place to cycle is because they don't wear helmets there. Can you see the flaw in the methodology and the real reason why the injuries per 100,000 population is so much higher in the Netherlands than the UK?

And do you really think the number of bikes imported into a country is a good measure of the number of cyclists in a country?

[1] Without looking them up, from memory the number of cyclists killed per annum in the UK and Netherlands is about 100 and 200 respectively for respective populations of 60 million and 16 million. Per 100,000 of population therefore the cyclist death rate in the Netherlands is 8 times that of the UK. That clearly indicates what a nonsense measure "per 100,000 population" is as a measure of cyclist safety.

Its only when you factor in that the Dutch cycle about 12 times a much as the Brits that you come to a sensible measure that per cyclist the death rate is 50% higher in the UK. I've no idea what the relative numbers of bike imports are for the two countries. What I do know is that bike imports to the UK fell by 12% in 2009 and then increased by 24% in 2010 against a steady increase in the numbers cycling in the UK i.e. there is no correlation whatsoever between import levels and cycling levels.

 

[hoopdriver]

It was a junk study. It completely lacked rigour. It has been heavily criticised by other researchers - including researchers from the same university.

Why can't you accept that?

You don't like the message - shoot the messenger. Nothing new in that.

 

[Red Light]

You don't like the message - shoot the messenger. Nothing new in that.

Other than irrelevant cliche's do you have anything to counter the critique of the study that I posted above?

 

[hoopdriver]

Have the goods but not the time - sorry, sunshine, I gotta work...

 

[theclaud]

I am just better at put downs, that's all.

I dispute that. I'm biased, but I'm also right.

 

[pubrunner]

. . . . . . . (although there are still a lot of snake oil salesmen around of the sort that did for Steve Jobs).

That's nonsense !

First, there is no cure for pancreatic cancer. Secondly, 75% of all those who develop the disease, die within just a matter of weeks/months after diagnosis; Steve Jobs lived 7 years after pancreatic cancer was detected - which is very rare indeed.

 

[hoopdriver]

That's nonsense !

First, there is no cure for pancreatic cancer. Secondly, 75% of all those who develop the disease, die within just a matter of weeks/months after diagnosis; Steve Jobs lived 7 years after pancreatic cancer was detected - which is very rare indeed.

Actually I think in his case there was some kind of decent hope - details elude me at the moment but I have read several accounts that early surgery would have offered him a much better prognosis and that he himself later regretted his decision to go with holistic remedies.