How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[JonnyBlade]

I come to the debate late so excuse me for asking what must have been explained before. I don't wear a helmet for comfort and aesthetic reasons yet I do think I perhaps should because it seems logical to assume that they will protect my head in the case of an accident. However now I come to rad about it it seems that there are a lot of people who think they do no good or at worst make cycling more dangerous.
Please can somebody explain, as if to a simple child, how a layer of protection can not protect the head, at least a little bit?

Apparently it's all down to statistics! Because there are too few instances it's not considered proof and could even be down to poor riding styles. You'll find the defenders of the faith on here will defend it to the hilt with any manner of twisty wordy methods

I personally feel a confidence wearing a helmet but it isn't my choice as to why others should wear helmets. It's good to have the choice

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

i put up a link to some more info,http://daviswiki.org/Bicycle_Helmets. and then click NHTSA fact sheet, probably deemed not scientific enough though.

Of course it wasn't , that's because it was't science it was someones report of scince to bolster their position, don't you understand the difference? One of the key figures to look out for when judging the authenticy of any comment on cycle helmets is the over 80%+ figure. The reason it's key to knowing not to bother reading any further is not whether you agree with helmets or the writer or anything else but the fact that the authors of the 80%+ themselves grudgingly revised the figure downwards , so anyone using the 80%+ figure is either out of date or is deliberatley using the higher figure for their own puposes. Ask yourself , can you trust somone who is either out of date oris deliberately falsifying figure?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

He kept changing the configuration and then saying "try it now", BANG !!, new piece of fuse wire, "OK try it now"BANG !! FOUR TIMES, I ran out of 5amp in the end.

Shoudn't it have been 3 amp for a lighting circuit?

 

[twobiker]

Shoudn't it have been 3 amp for a lighting circuit?

No in the main fuse box its a 5

 

[twobiker]

Of course it wasn't , that's because it was't science it was someones report of scince to bolster their position, don't you understand the difference? One of the key figures to look out for when judging the authenticy of any comment on cycle helmets is the over 80%+ figure. The reason it's key to knowing not to bother reading any further is not whether you agree with helmets or the writer or anything else but the fact that the authors of the 80%+ themselves grudgingly revised the figure downwards , so anyone using the 80%+ figure is either out of date or is deliberatley using the higher figure for their own puposes. Ask yourself , can you trust somone who is either out of date oris deliberately falsifying figure?

The NHTSA fact sheet was produced by the government.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

The NHTSA fact sheet was produced by the government.

Ask yourself , can you trust somone who is either out of date or is deliberately falsifying figures?


You really don't understand the scientific method at all do you, it's the research papers whic are inportant , not the report where someone picks what paper they need to bolster their case.

Never mind the huge problems with R,T&T's papers( comparing white middle class kids riding on parks with unfiltered hospital entries, tiny population, bad mathematics) R,T&T revised their figures down from 80%+ to 60%+ , anyone using the higher figure ias out of date or being slippery.

 

[twobiker]

The mistake is in not clarifying what type of injury in the OP. or actually thinking there is a definitive answer.

 

[twobiker]

Ask yourself , can you trust somone who is either out of date or is deliberately falsifying figures?


You really don't understand the scientific method at all do you, it's the research papers whic are inportant , not the report where someone picks what paper they need to bolster their case.

Never mind the huge problems with R,T&T's papers( comparing white middle class kids riding on parks with unfiltered hospital entries, tiny population, bad mathematics) R,T&T revised their figures down from 80%+ to 60%+ , anyone using the higher figure ias out of date or being slippery.

Just imagine that you are in a room with the person you reply to, and that if you spoke to them face to face like this ,what would happen. it could all get very messy.

 

[Red Light]

It has to be scientific, otherwise Red Light and his mates would be out of a job.

Nothing to do with scientific but everything to do with understanding what proof means.

But me an' my mates would not be out of a job over helmets. But if scientists were not there you wouldn't be able to have a computer or forum and you would most likely be dead by now from some disease or accident. But some people like to rubbish science even though they are they depend on the benefits it brings them.

 

[Red Light]

Out of interest: Red Light, as a child when told not to touch electrical sockets with wet hands did you read through all of the available data to reach a conclusion or did you take it at face value?

Out of interest my Dad taught me about electrical sockets rather than just telling me not to touch them. He also included tales from his army days when they stuck six inch nails in the fuse box and dropped two metal plates into containers of water to boil it for tea. So I learnt a lot about electrickery and what you should and shouldn't do with it. And by the way, you would have to have much more than wet hands to have a safety issue with a socket unless you were totally ignorant and did something very very silly.

The understanding came in very useful later in life when I was working with lethal voltages of many tens or hundreds of thousands of volts.

 

[Red Light]

As to evidence that helmets prevent head injuries, there is none as far as I know, but why would there be. Who reports that a helmet has saved them from injury, why would you?

This is why banging on about evidence is not getting you anywhere. Its quite apparent from the various threads riders are relying on their own personal experience.

God damn it! You've just found a fatal flaw in all medical research! How the hell do they tell if their practices are making people healthier when healthy people don't go to see a doctor? There should be a Nobel Prize in this for you if you write it up!


But I guess if riders are relying on their personal experience and a large majority of cyclists don't wear helmets, that must say that most people's experience is they don't work. But you can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones the helmet makers are after

 

[Red Light]

Of course it wasn't , that's because it was't science it was someones report of scince to bolster their position, don't you understand the difference? One of the key figures to look out for when judging the authenticy of any comment on cycle helmets is the over 80%+ figure. The reason it's key to knowing not to bother reading any further is not whether you agree with helmets or the writer or anything else but the fact that the authors of the 80%+ themselves grudgingly revised the figure downwards , so anyone using the 80%+ figure is either out of date or is deliberatley using the higher figure for their own puposes. Ask yourself , can you trust somone who is either out of date oris deliberately falsifying figure?

Since twobiker seems intent on running the same thread twice in parallel on this one, I will also point out in this thread that the 80%+ figure is so discredited that the ASA banned BHIT from using it in their literature. So you can assume any source that uses it for evidence in support of helmets is also discredited.

 

[JonnyBlade]

Red Light .................. I knew you'd be around here somewhere

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Just imagine that you are in a room with the person you reply to, and that if you spoke to them face to face like this ,what would happen.

If they were interested in thinking about the subject rather than simply trying to justify their pre judged position they might answerr the question.

 

[lukesdad]

If they were interested in thinking about the subject rather than simply trying to justify their pre judged position they might answerr the question.

Pre judged position thats a good one !