How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[srw]

The drivers probably thought it was a trap. He wasn't really 'dressed as a woman' though, he just wore a blonde wig! (I think he couldn't get a female cyclist to take part.) How that piece of research ever got past the reviewers is a bit of a mystery.

My best guess is that it was better than nothing - the world of driver behaviour in response to bikes doesn't seem to be over-loaded with good-quality research.

I assume that reviewers don't just take into account the absolute quality of a piece of research but its relative quality. If something is novel and OK it will pass in a way it wouldn't if it weren't novel.

I think the idea of subtle and individual responses to particular circumstances is a little lost on Mr User.

 

[Hilldodger]

< raises hand > Please sir me...me !

Nobody likes a swot.

 

[StuartG]

The research was robust and peer reviewed.

Peer reviewed? Yes. That only indicates that it is likely to be more reliable than an unpeered paper. It doesn't make it right.
Robust? Well even the author has doubts on that. As do others who have reviewed the paper.

It was, and is, an important and good paper establishing a disturbing set of results. Was it not limited in not attempting to rule out other confounding factors apart from helmets and gender? Does it not fail, or rather has yet to rank, as a theory in that it has yet to be corroborated by other studies or used to predict measurable outcomes elsewhere?

May I suggest we share a little humility around? Your arrogance in denouncing TMN on the flimsiest of evidence fails at a number of levels. Or am I being a bit old fashioned? Again!

 

[StuartG]

I didn't "denounce" TMN - I simply responded to her very dismissive comment about the research.

But was it not unreasonable even if you disagree with it?
Its a question of standards. The paper, I'm sure had the author wished, be very welcome in the RSS 'Significance' magazine which is not formally peer reviewed. It would have a more difficult time getting into 'Applied Statistics (Series C)' or the US equivalent. Such journals are very light on cycling statistics. You might wish to ask yourself - why?

Let's be clear this paper provides Interesting statistics pointing towards a disturbing conclusion. But NOT establishing it. It is robust only in the treatment of the data collected. It is not robust in the experimental design and does not really tackle the problem of dealing with tails of unknown distributions and forecasting events not seen (well perhaps just twice. Its been a few years since I read it but AFAIR author makes no special claims in those departments.

Reg - you and I do enjoy rubbishing the 85% claims made by the helmeteers. But I am suggesting that perhaps you are not as hard on research more in line with your worldview. Particulary when its not rubbish but being used in a way to say more than it does.

 

[Licramite]

Looking at helmet manufacture standards am I right in thinking the American standards appear better than the European standards. -
which implies if I'm going to buy a new helmet (reviewing mine which is probably better than I can buy nowadays as its an early 1990s helmet so probably complies to the old British standard)
I would be better buying it from the states.

mine is getting rather tatty on the inside, I could refurb it with lots of new foam inserts, but it might be time to look round for a new one.

of course its all academic what with my panic sensitive sunglasses and my 'its statistical proved it won't happen to you, so any accident occurring to you is highly unlikely and more probably a figment of your imagination' sticker, my helmet will never be put to the test and is only there to make me look even more like Bradly Wiggins.

 

[Alun]

(reviewing mine which is probably better than I can buy nowadays as its an early 1990s helmet so probably complies to the old British standard)

A 20 year old helmet? You should replace it every FIVE years!
I'm surprised the helmet police haven't paid you a visit already.
Shame on david k for encouraging you.

 

[Licramite]

Its ok I just checked , I must have replaced it recently - 1999 is my road one. - , my off road one is 2010 but looking a bit worse for wear after my last ground head butting incident, nothing cracked but its lost its shine for definite.

 

[Alun]

Its ok I just checked , I must have replaced it recently - 1999 is my road one. - , my off road one is 2010 but looking a bit worse for wear after my last ground head butting incident, nothing cracked but its lost its shine for definite.

Ooops, crashed it? You know what you should do next ! http://www.helmets.org/replace.htm
Are you going to replace both? Could you manage with just one helmet?

 

[Licramite]

I've inspected it , its fine, plastics scratched , the rest is fine.I got it for off roading, rock climbing and paintballing - (paintballing after I ran head long into a tree - figured maybe some sort of head protection would be good) but it's good for off roading.

the advantage of an off road helmet, less air holes is when head butting your way through a bush or tree you get less rubbish in your helmet and stuff stuck in your head.

Most of the age thing on replacing helmets is more to do with the manufacturer covering his arse than actual need.

its my road helmet that is getting tatty but would it be better to get it from the states than uk ?

 

[Drago]

Helmet wearers have 40% more sex than non helmet wearers. That's good enough for me.

 

[ufkacbln]

I've inspected it , its fine, plastics scratched , the rest is fine.

You simply cannot know that.

The materials in helmets are designed to absorb impact once.

Any impact will decrease the further usefulness of that helmet. If the material is already compressed it will not compress further, you cannot exclude small cracks in the material either.

It never ceases to amaze me how many iof the "pro helmet" posters seem to have no real idea about helmets, their function or correct use!

 

[Drago]

Or how many of the anti helmet brigade understand so little about physics.

 

[Norm]

Or how many of the anti helmet brigade understand so little about physics.

Want to stop hiding and actually name someone you think is anti-helmet?

 

[Drago]

I'm not 'hiding' anywhere. I'm well documented as sitting on the fence, which isn't terribly comfortable. I wear a lid, mainly out of inertia from having to wear one at work, but don't remain terribly convinced of their effectiveness in a big punt.

Now, while you're in a naming mood perhaps you could first ask Cunobelin to name an example of clueless pro-wearer.

 

[Norm]

Licramite, Lukesdad, David K, it's not too tough. But I didn't think you'd be able to do it.