How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?
- Thread starter Cyclopathic
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
mickle
innit
- Location
- 53.933606, -1.076131
Thats the one. Thanks very much.
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
Bike design has changed. Wheel building materials have changed. Medical diagnostic abilities have become much improved. Three just off the top of my head.
mickle
innit
- Location
- 53.933606, -1.076131
Look at the graph, and then ask yourself: How has bike frame design changed and how do you imagine that has had any fecking effect whatsoever on head injuries? How have wheel building materials changed? And what effect do you think wheel building materials have had on cyclist deaths?
How have medical diagnostic abilities changed and how on Gods Good Earth might they have any effect on deaths?
Or are you clutching at straws?
I don't think they had much difficulty diagnosing the patient was dead throughout that period.
twobiker
New Member
- Location
- South Hams Devon
On a Mountain Bike you sit more upright than on something with drops, as you do on a classic roadster, therefore if you are head down are you not more likely to hit head first ?.
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
Carbon wheels
More aggressive bike profiles
Medical diagnostics I threw in as a joke.
The point is that unless all the changes are looked at it is nopt certain that hlemets are the (sole) cause of the increase in head injuries.
It is like saying that there have been more road fatalities since the introduction of the driving test but ignoring facts like there are more cars on the road.
Another example is to blame speeding for all road deaths.
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
Seer reply to Mickle
lukesdad
Guest
What about :
Financial Reward
Racing miles
Length of season
Countries raced in
Quantity of pro licenses
Competition for places in teams.
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?
The point being missed is the one being illustrated nicely by this example
The answer is simple, you are making a (subliminal?) judgement on the source of the evidence, and weighing the available data and it's source
If you trust your parents as a source then you take heed.... but what if it was another child who told you it was safe, should that advice be given the same value?
We are back to teen age pregnancies again....
Out of interest would you rather a teenage girl relied on her peer's advice that you can't get pregnant if you have sex standing up, or too amore evidence based approach?
Yes, I did. "It was a joke" seems to be your standard response when you find yourself unable to defend your statements.
Are you aware of evidence that carbon wheels being unusually prone to failure? Bike profiles are closely controlled by UCI.
Or were those both jokes too?
... and when that experience is wrong?
One example is the claim (from personal experience) that helmets are wide enough to protect from facial injuries
Absolutely untrue, but put forward as a reason why you don't need a full face helmet!
Should we simply accept such dangerous claims?
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
Did you read the rest of the post? How can a conclusion be reached if only one piece of data is analysed? This must make sense to you.
- Status
