The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Profpointy]

I don't really because it makes no sense.it is a two fold thing, increased risk of impact and likelihood of the helmet being effective at the probable impact speed. You cannot look at one in isolation and call that logical.

ok I'll explain.

It maybe perfectly logical that if A is true then B is true. I might then agree with the logic.

However if A is not true, or at least not proven, then i may agree wjth the logic but not agree with the conclusion (B) because A isn't true

 

[totallyfixed]

No helmets were harmed during the making of this video.

We have cycled and also stayed at Lelystad twice now, this video is actually a very interesting experiment, no one appeared to hit their head, yet one could easily see that if helmets had been worn by all those cyclists at least some would have connected with the ground and perhaps a few would have cracked their helmets evoking the cry, "the helmet saved my life". Perhaps they are just more skilful.
I have come to the reluctant conclusion that there are a lot of drama queens in the UK.

 

[Scoosh]

MOD NOTE:
You are reminded of the 'additional Rules' that apply to this Thread, as given in post 1. An extract follows. Please abide by the additional Rules.
Thank you.


Discussion Rules:

Normal forum rules apply, but these additional rules will take priority in governing The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread:

No personal remarks, dismissive or derisive comments, insults, scorn, mocking, etc. - when replying please focus on the points someone has made. Do not make your reply personal and do not allow your temper to get the better of you if you feel strongly about something someone else has posted. If you feel another post or poster is inappropriate just report it. Responding with personal remarks or trying to moderate the thread will lead to you being excluded from the discussion for a period of 30 days.

No insistence or demands for members to provide evidence or proof - personal experiences and anecdotes are fine in the context of this forum discussion. We're not looking to formulate laws or prove anything scientifically. Insistence will lead to you being excluded for 30 days.

No nit-picking, stirring, goading, circular arguments, etc. - please ensure your posts and replies are substantial and either make a point or address the points you are replying to, and do not debate a specific point ad nauseam. Nit-picking, stirring, goading, and circular arguments, etc. will lead to you being excluded for 30 days.

Moderators are allowed some discretion and may choose to post a request in the thread to bring it back on track before applying any exclusions, but the main point to understand is that you risk losing your right to reply if you do not engage politely and properly with other members.

 

[Shaun]

I've removed a few posts discussing a participant in the thread. If you believe someone is not participating in good faith - please report it and move on.

Thanks,
Shaun

 

[totallyfixed]

As an aside, recommend or not?

Yes and no, the Dutch equivalent of Milton Keynes without the roundabouts. Most of it is below sea level though how that explains the general rotundness of the folk that live their I have no idea. The forested areas to the SE are maze like, the coast path to the NE is more interesting and Horn across the Houtribdijk is well worth a visit.

 

[RichardB]

I wondered if you could offer an explanation for the collision rate increasing after seat belt legislation?

I can't post a link to the stats, but from memory the overall injury rate went down ("success!") but that masked a huge decrease in injuries to car occupants and a significant increase in injuries to pedestrians and cyclists. In other words, the net effect of seat belts is to transfer injuries and deaths from the interior of the car to the outside. If we were serious about preventing injury and death on the roads, we would make seat belts and air bags for drivers illegal, and at the same time mandatory for all passengers. Let's place the risk firmly with the person who can influence it.

 

[srw]

I can't post a link to the stats, but from memory the overall injury rate went down ("success!") but that masked a huge decrease in injuries to car occupants and a significant increase in injuries to pedestrians and cyclists. In other words, the net effect of seat belts is to transfer injuries and deaths from the interior of the car to the outside. If we were serious about preventing injury and death on the roads, we would make seat belts and air bags for drivers illegal, and at the same time mandatory for all passengers. Let's place the risk firmly with the person who can influence it.

Off topic, but I remember @swansonj and I having a bit of a barney about this. He pointed out - correctly - that even the claim that there was a huge decrease in injuries to car occupants after mandatory seat-belting was dubious based on the evidence.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Truly an illuminating thread. Now we want to make seat belts and airbags illegal. Again everyone else got it wrong. What about medications? I have seen enough literature to suggest that the side effects are not worth it but do we follow these?

 

[Arrowfoot]

Straw man arguments

No its not, someone just stated to make seatbelts and airbags illegal just because they have seen literature related to it. There are loads of literature on not relying on medications. Do we follow these? Both arguments are related to human lifes.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Where?

#2081.

 

[srw]

Ah right, I had not read that post. It doesn't suggest making either seatbelts or airbags illegal though. It suggests they should be retained for passengers, on the grounds that making cars less safe for the drivers might make them drive more carefully. It wouldn't work. Before cars had crumple zones, airbags, seatbelts with pre-tensioners etc we just accepted more in car death as a fact of life. Now we do have them we have safer cars for the occupants but that represents a risk transference to soft road users.

Again, I'm not sure the statistics bear that up. Whatever the risk arguments, there has been a significant reduction in negative outcomes (death and serious injury) across the last 40 or 50 years for all road years. When you dig into the cycling death statistics you realise quite quickly that a surprisingly large number of them represent either cyclists who have died of medical conditions (heart attack, stroke etc) or cyclists who have died with no other vehicle involved.

 

[totallyfixed]

Again, I'm not sure the statistics bear that up. Whatever the risk arguments, there has been a significant reduction in negative outcomes (death and serious injury) across the last 40 or 50 years for all road years. When you dig into the cycling death statistics you realise quite quickly that a surprisingly large number of them represent either cyclists who have died of medical conditions (heart attack, stroke etc) or cyclists who have died with no other vehicle involved.

Correct. The perceived danger from [London tends to skew the figures] other vehicles is actually just that, perceived, but it is enough to make misguided individuals don a helmet in the belief it will somehow make them safer which of course it won't.

 

[Profpointy]

Truly an illuminating thread. Now we want to make seat belts and airbags illegal. Again everyone else got it wrong. What about medications? I have seen enough literature to suggest that the side effects are not worth it but do we follow these?

well actually on your last point, yes, that's exactly what we do. If it turns out the side effects of a drug are worse than the beneits, or indeed, it is simply ineffective it is simply dropped. Thalidomide is an extreme example

 

[broadway]

well actually on your last point, yes, that's exactly what we do. If it turns out the side effects of a drug are worse than the beneits, or indeed, it is simply ineffective it is simply dropped. Thalidomide is an extreme example

Or not as the case maybe, Thalidomide has been found to provide benefits in Leprosy, as long as it is used in appropriate circumstances a "dangerous" drug can still be useful as long as the dangers can be avoided.

 

[martint235]

Or not as the case maybe, Thalidomide has been found to provide benefits in Leprosy, as long as it is used in appropriate circumstances a "dangerous" drug can still be useful as long as the dangers can be avoided.

You need to change the license though (in the UK anyway) so Thalidomide is no longer licensed as a morning sickness drug. I vaguely remember seeing something on the telly box the other day that a cancer drug is useful in the treatment of MS. Again it's a license change.

Pertinent to this thread though is the process. First you have to prove that your drug does no harm, then you have to prove that it helps with the condition you're proposing to use it against then you need to evidence the efficacy of the drug and document the side effects then you need to continually monitor it in the public domain (via the yellow form system). All through the process you're required to provide evidence publicly and be prepared to have that evidence peer reviewed.

Shame no one thought of that for helmets.