The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[theclaud]

I just stick a helmet on, I don't think about the why's or the wherefore's

Might I suggest, then, that a thread entitled 'Helmet Debate' might not really be the one for you?

 

[theclaud]

I wear a cap that says "Team Lelly" down the side as a fashion choice.

That is, to be fair, a singular interpretation of the phrase 'fashion choice'.

 

[Justinslow]

Might I suggest, then, that a thread entitled 'Helmet Debate' might not really be the one for you?

I think you've taken a small piece of what I was trying to say, I am a cyclist I wear a helmet, of course this thread is open to me.

 

[theclaud]

I think you've taken a small piece of what I was trying to say, I am a cyclist I wear a helmet, of course this thread is open to me.

It's beyond perverse to persist in a debate if you are genuinely uninterested in the 'whys and wherefores'. A less charitable person might conclude that you are being disingenuous.

 

[martint235]

That is, to be fair, a singular interpretation of the phrase 'fashion choice'.

Hey play nicely.

 

[Justinslow]

It's beyond perverse to persist in a debate if you are genuinely uninterested in the 'whys and wherefores'. A less charitable person might conclude that you are being disingenuous.

My post was demonstrating my need to not make an informed choice when I go out and ride and wear a helmet, I put one on, I don't over analyse it.
Here's what I said,

do you make "informed choices" about everything you do in life or sometimes do you just go with a "gut instinct"? For me - I just stick a helmet on, I don't think about the why's or the wherefore's, I certainly don't go out thinking I'm going to crash and it might help me, quite the opposite - I'm never going to crash, confidence is king, but I'll still wear a helmet.

Of course even though I go out with the intention of not crashing and I believe I won't, I still could from a multitude of reasons, which is why I wear a helmet.
Put it this way, just because evidence is put forward from Australia, Canada or wherever else (which I have read) regarding their effectiveness does not mean I will stop wearing one. Somebody posted a while ago that they could do some good however remote and that the evidence is lost in statistical noise, well that's good enough for me.

 

[Justinslow]

An interesting old study, showing the effectiveness of cycle helmets.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm198905253202101

 

[Justinslow]

It's beyond perverse to persist in a debate if you are genuinely uninterested in the 'whys and wherefores'. A less charitable person might conclude that you are being disingenuous.

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...s-compulsory-seattle-amsterdam-cycling-safety
Seattle v Amsterdam
And taken from that article, if it's good enough for Marco to "never give it a thought" surely it's good enough for me?

 

[martint235]

An interesting old study, showing the effectiveness of cycle helmets.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm198905253202101

Balanced somewhat by this:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html

 

[Justinslow]

You have, at long last, hit upon a scientific study that appears to show something you like? It is a bit of a shame that it is probably the most notoriously discredited one that there is.

Yeah a quick Google and link from the Seattle v Amsterdam article!
Oh well it was worth a try.......

 

[Justinslow]

For goodness sake, have you really not understood that you are discussing this with some people who have thought about this, and done so for quite some time?

Here's another
http://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/cyclists/cycle-helmets.pdf

 

[summerdays]

My post was demonstrating my need to not make an informed choice when I go out and ride and wear a helmet, I put one on, I don't over analyse it.

So it doesn't matter if other people make the opposite choice without thinking about it.

 

[srw]

For goodness sake, have you really not understood that you are discussing this with some people who have thought about this, and done so for quite some time?

Here's another
http://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/cyclists/cycle-helmets.pdf

Clearly not.

 

[benb]

At least there is a glimmer of hope - Justin is actually looking at the evidence now.
All we need to do is get him to discard his confirmation bias and we might actually get somewhere.

 

[Profpointy]

Here's another
http://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/cyclists/cycle-helmets.pdf

I can see at a glance some howlers on some of them.... but the key thing for me is the whole population null result in Australia. If you go from hardly anyine wearing helmets to nearly everyone wearing helmets and don't see an improvement then it is simply dishonest to take these smaller studies as propaganda. These smaller studies may have some insight to give, but that's not the same thing as saying helmets help o average

A key thing missed in at least one of the Rospa result is the "size of head" thing - if your head's now twice as big (which isn't far off as we're talking atea not diameter) then a study that only looks at those who've hit their head has straightway missed the mark.

As an aside, a recent Australian survey started well by comparing head injuries before and after compulsion versus non-head injuries - so far so good. Then they went and spoilt it by choosing different before and after dates than when compulsion was introduced. "policy based evidence" or what?