Would You Be Here Today If You Hadn't Been Wearing A Helmet?

[Angelfishsolo]

No, this is twaddle. There may have been statistical evidence that red cars are involved in most accidents, but there are many possible explanations of this and nobody with even a basic grounding in maths is going to accept that as "proof" that they are more dangerous without asking about confounding factors.

Insurance companies took it on board. I am not saying I agree with it but it was used as a proof.

 

[david k]

The suggestions have led us to believe the advantages of not wearing a helmet were more than minimal.

Are we now saying there is an insignificant advantage to not wearing a helmet?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

The suggestions have led us to believe the advantages of not wearing a helmet were more than minimal.

Are we now saying there is an insignificant advantage to not wearing a helmet?

It would appear that there is so little difference between wearing and not wearing one that it is a statistically irrelevant to injury prevention or cause.

 

[david k]

No, this is twaddle. There may have been statistical evidence that red cars are involved in most accidents, but there are many possible explanations of this and nobody with even a basic grounding in maths is going to accept that as "proof" that they are more dangerous without asking about confounding factors.

So statistics can mislead if you dont think them through? Stats can lead you to believe one thing and when you consider other implications it can appear so different?

If this is the case can the same be applied to said data suggested here?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

So statistics can mislead if you dont think them through? Stats can lead you to believe one thing and when you consider other implications it can appear so different?

If this is the case can the same be applied to said data suggested here?

No because those reports are the right ones . Don't you get it????

 

[david k]

It would appear that there is so little difference between wearing and not wearing one that it is a statistically irrelevant to injury prevention or cause.

So if the advantage of not wearing one is insignificant. The advantage of wearing a helmet is it will protect you up to 12mph and the protection reducing there after. The only conclusion is you are safer with one on, surely?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

So if the advantage of not wearing one is insignificant. The advantage of wearing a helmet is it will protect you up to 12mph and the protection reducing there after. The only conclusion is you are safer with one on, surely?

That is logical. Therefore it can not be true

 

[Dan B]

So statistics can mislead if you dont think them through? Stats can lead you to believe one thing and when you consider other implications it can appear so different?

If this is the case can the same be applied to said data suggested here?

Yes, absolutely. Read the reports critically, think about all the possible explanations for the effects they claim to describe, and make your own mind up.

 

[Dan B]

So if the advantage of not wearing one is insignificant. The advantage of wearing a helmet is it will protect you up to 12mph and the protection reducing there after. The only conclusion is you are safer with one on, surely?

The conclusion is that you might be safer with one on but only in circumstances where you are unlikely to do yourself serious injury in the first place, and if you're worried about that level of risk then you really ought to be wearing one while walking as well. I'm sure there are people who've arrived at that judgement and do exactly that, as is their prerogative, but it's not exactly common is it?

 

[david k]

The conclusion is that you might be safer with one on but only in circumstances where you are unlikely to do yourself serious injury in the first place, and if you're worried about that level of risk then you really ought to be wearing one while walking as well. I'm sure there are people who've arrived at that judgement and do exactly that, as is their prerogative, but it's not exactly common is it?

Thank you

 

[Red Light]

No, this is twaddle. There may have been statistical evidence that red cars are involved in most accidents, but there are many possible explanations of this and nobody with even a basic grounding in maths is going to accept that as "proof" that they are more dangerous without asking about confounding factors.

That classifies a lot of medics as without a basic grounding in maths then. The origins of most of the medical "must wear a helmet" ethos comes from the red car effect. They see lots of head injured cyclists without helmets but many fewer helmeted ones and assume that's because the helmets are protecting them. They never think to look outside to see what percentage of the cycling population is wearing helmets for comparison.

 

[Red Light]

Yes, absolutely. Read the reports critically, think about all the possible explanations for the effects they claim to describe, and make your own mind up.

+1 and follow the four rules:

1. Suspend belief
2. Maintain scepticism
3. Don't be seduced by mechanisms
4. Do not turn a blind eye to contradictions.

 

[Red Light]

So if the advantage of not wearing one is insignificant. The advantage of wearing a helmet is it will protect you up to 12mph and the protection reducing there after. The only conclusion is you are safer with one on, surely?

But the population evidence is you are not safer with one on. I won't bother to bore you with repeated citations as we've been round this loop several times before. If your speculation about sub 12mph is right it only means they must be even worse above 12mph

 

[ufkacbln]

Yes, absolutely. Read the reports critically, think about all the possible explanations for the effects they claim to describe, and make your own mind up.

He already has . DavidK is a self declared pro-compulsionist

 

[ufkacbln]

That classifies a lot of medics as without a basic grounding in maths then. The origins of most of the medical "must wear a helmet" ethos comes from the red car effect. They see lots of head injured cyclists without helmets but many fewer helmeted ones and assume that's because the helmets are protecting them. They never think to look outside to see what percentage of the cycling population is wearing helmets for comparison.

Again my old friend illustrates the hypocrisy of the pro-helmet campaign.

The College of Emergency Medicine supports cycle helmets - so we should immediatley bow to this wisdom and wear them

The College of Emergency Medicine also supports the Thudguard, but in this case it isn't neccessary to bow to this wisdom and force children to wear them


Why is the advice of this "august body" irrefutable in the former case, but not in the latter?

I have yet to have any pro-helmet campaigner answer that one, and given the hypocrisy it illustrates I doubt we will.