metro article on helmets
- Thread starter scotty110788
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Your questions about stats have been answered several times, it is just that you have not read the answers!
Your determination to abuse them and select the safest possible pedestrian for comparison with the average cyclist is laughable, but then again if that is what you need to support your beliefs then fine.
It is called "Bias" in peer reviewed literature and would have any paper submitted thrown out from any respectable publication.
The original studies (as pointed out several times before) take in all the cohort (usually hospital admissions whether they be good, bad, sober, drunk, trained, untrained, old, young etc.
You want to cherry pick and find a nice safe low risk pedestrian, yet hypocritically don't do the same and compare with a nice safe low risk cyclist.
Lets take the above example... do you or do you not agree with the following:
Why wear a cycle helmet if statistically, healthy, smart, sober, young, non-drug taking able-bodied mid-twenties men are safer cycling down the road than those stats suggest.
This is an equivocal statement to yours. Surely if a pedestrian and cyclist are both safer than average then neither would need to wear a helmet, or if there is still a risk then both should wear one.
Now the big question is.... do you now understand what bias is and why choosing truly comparative cohorts is necessary?
Exactly the point being made
1. Cycle helmets can in some circumstances help protect the head
2. This protection exists for any wearer of that helmet
3. This protection for both pedestrians and cyclists
4. Both groups are equally at risk from head injury
It simply raises the question of why we have the frenzied lobbying for one group to wear protective equipment and not the other.
Why? Because both groups are at a similar risk of head injury, but only one group are criticised for not wearing a helmet. Why is that?
[QUOTE 1774793, member: 45"]I know a woman in her late eighties who until a couple of years ago cycled every day. Actually she may still, but I haven't seen her on her bike for a long while.
Although when she rode she careered down the pavement at silly speeds, so I don't think she's a fair sample.[/quote]
Actually if you want to prove how cycling is beneficial look at the obituaries in the CTC magazine. Most are in their 80's.
There was also a group that included several nonogenarians
Although when she rode she careered down the pavement at silly speeds, so I don't think she's a fair sample.[/quote]
Actually if you want to prove how cycling is beneficial look at the obituaries in the CTC magazine. Most are in their 80's.
There was also a group that included several nonogenarians
[QUOTE 1774832, member: 45"]I think it's fair to accept that the cohort which makes up 'cyclists' differs from that which makes up 'pedestrians'.[/quote]
Agreed. Cyclists are at lower risk of accident and head injury. 43% of pedestrian emergency hospital admissions for falls in the street are in the 16-64yr age group. 43% of cyclist non- traffic accident emergency hospital admissions are in the 16-64yr age group. The difference is for cyclists 52% are in the under 16's while for pedestrians 53% are in the over 65's.
Agreed. Cyclists are at lower risk of accident and head injury. 43% of pedestrian emergency hospital admissions for falls in the street are in the 16-64yr age group. 43% of cyclist non- traffic accident emergency hospital admissions are in the 16-64yr age group. The difference is for cyclists 52% are in the under 16's while for pedestrians 53% are in the over 65's.
FTFY
Little yellow Brompton
A dark destroyer of biscuits!
- Location
- Bridgend
[QUOTE 1775217, member: 45"]Well, you know, some might want to use this sort of side-discussion as some sort of weight to their argument...[/quote]
I've never heard an argument for the use of cycle helmets that didn't indlude either the dicredited 88% figure or didn't really on " Welll it'sobvious innit, it's common sense, they must work!"
I've never heard an argument for the use of cycle helmets that didn't indlude either the dicredited 88% figure or didn't really on " Welll it'sobvious innit, it's common sense, they must work!"
[QUOTE 1775192, member: 45"]You agree, yet you don't appear to have considered the implications.[/quote]
So what are the implications?
Why don't you tell us what you think about it?
Agreed. Their effectiveness is their effectiveness. What we are discussing though is what our imperfect knowledge of that effectiveness is and how that knowledge is used.
So what are the implications?
Why don't you tell us what you think about it?
Agreed. Their effectiveness is their effectiveness. What we are discussing though is what our imperfect knowledge of that effectiveness is and how that knowledge is used.
[QUOTE 1775246, member: 45"]It's my duty to restore some balance.
[/quote]
I note that while trying to effect an impression of disinterest, your attempts to "restore balance" are all directed at those questioning helmet effectiveness and not those who are convinced of their effectiveness. So how about some balance to your "balance"?
[/quote]
I note that while trying to effect an impression of disinterest, your attempts to "restore balance" are all directed at those questioning helmet effectiveness and not those who are convinced of their effectiveness. So how about some balance to your "balance"?
[QUOTE 1775630, member: 45"]This has already been explained. If for example 50% of the pedestrian group was made up of people who travelled forwards by jumping head-first at the pavement, getting up and repeating the process, but none of the cycling group included any of these people then this would make a comparison of the two groups pointless.[/quote]
Since the stats I cited are consolidated for all hospital emergency admissions in the UK, do you have any evidence to support a view that in the 16-64 yr age group they are about anything other than a typical cross section of people in both groups?
So what are those snippets. You seem to love casting unspecific aspertions.
Since the stats I cited are consolidated for all hospital emergency admissions in the UK, do you have any evidence to support a view that in the 16-64 yr age group they are about anything other than a typical cross section of people in both groups?
So what are those snippets. You seem to love casting unspecific aspertions.
[QUOTE 1775650, member: 45"]I'm working on balancing you at the moment, given the bias which you may or may not be aware of. If anything comes up from anyone else which isn't being balanced then rest assured that I'll be there.
[/quote]
Yes, I'd noticed your fixation on my questioning helmet effectiveness with evidence here and in other helmet threads yet you have never once questioned an un-evidenced assertion of belief in helmet effectiveness or extrapolation of a single anecdote to represent the general. I wonder why that might be?
[/quote]Yes, I'd noticed your fixation on my questioning helmet effectiveness with evidence here and in other helmet threads yet you have never once questioned an un-evidenced assertion of belief in helmet effectiveness or extrapolation of a single anecdote to represent the general. I wonder why that might be?
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
LOL, that might have been me... although i think the wording was look like a douche bag as opposed to stupid
Titan yer tummy
No meatings b4 dinner!
- Location
- Beckenham, SE London
If you anti helmeters are correct would you please explain why this rule appears in the highway code:
59
Clothing. You should wear
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
Your comments will interest me!
Kind regards
TyT
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
59
Clothing. You should wear
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
Your comments will interest me!
Kind regards
TyT
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
- Status
