Helmets

I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.

Frankly, I really don't give a toss whether helmet wearing is compulsory or voluntary - after two
or three instances where wearing a helmet has saved me from a premature (in my opinion, others may
beg to differ) end, I simply would not dream of cycling without one. And I would not let my kids do
so either.

And anyone who would serious consider riding on or off road without one needs their head examining
(and probably will, by a medic if lucky, or a pathologist if not) It is a basic, sensible
precaution.

I understand the arguments about personal freedom of choice - but anyone with the time and energy on
their hands to get exercised about this could find many other, more pressing issues to get their
teeth into.

Rant over chaps, as you were!

Peter Taylor

On 4/2/04 5:13 pm, in article bvr96v$c19$1@hercules.btinternet.com, "Peter
Taylor" <peter@fponline.co.uk> wrote:

> I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.

A grasp of statistics perhaps?

> And anyone who would serious consider riding on or off road without one needs their head examining
> (and probably will, by a medic if lucky, or a pathologist if not) It is a basic, sensible
> precaution.

As is wearing one when you walk along the street, harness and ropes when climbing a ladder or the
stairs. Fireproof suit and helmet when driving a car.

It is not about whether there is no danger, it is about relative danger. I wear one when riding off
road where I am more likely tohave a fall (and such a fall is likely to be ameliorated by a helmet).

I don't wear one on the road because the chance of me having an accident are slim, the chance of
injury in such an accident even slimmer, and the speed at which I would have such an accident into
the range where helmets will probably not help but could potentially exacerbate an injury.

Add to that the inconvenience of having to sort separate headgear, put the thing somewhere when I am
shopping etc.

I presume you carry a lightning conductor around with you. About the same number of people die
solely from preventable head injuries when cycling as are struck by lighning each year in UK (a
small number between 1 and ten).

..d

Peter Taylor wrote:
> I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.

So do I.

"Peter Taylor" <peter@fponline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bvr96v$c19$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.

Yup :-) An understanding of the counter-intuitive issues.

> And anyone who would serious consider riding on or off road without one needs their head examining
> (and probably will, by a medic if lucky, or a pathologist if not) It is a basic, sensible
> precaution.

Part of your problem lies here : the answer is not "probably". In fact it's reasonably unlikely.
Millions of riders around the world manage to demonstrate this.

I assume you've read the core facts in the various discussions :

1) Helmets ought to make you safer in the event of a collision
2) Studies of head injuries show that the number of them doesn't seem to be related to the
proportion of people wearing helmets at all.

Now isn't that a bit strange? Fact 2 seems to imply fact 1 isn't true. Fact 2 also seems to imply
that wearing a helmet isn't the 'basic, sensible precaution' you say.

So, how do you reconcile these two facts?

clive

"Peter Taylor" <peter@fponline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bvr96v$c19$1@hercules.btinternet.com...

> I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.

You said it :-)

> Frankly, I really don't give a toss whether helmet wearing is compulsory
or
> voluntary

Because, presumably, you don't care if a third of cyclists simply stop riding.

>- after two or three instances where wearing a helmet has saved me
> from a premature (in my opinion, others may beg to differ) end

Or not, it might have been the Mk. 1 Skull which has been protecting cyclists since before they were
cyclists...

> I understand the arguments about personal freedom of choice - but anyone with the time and energy
> on their hands to get exercised about this could find many other, more pressing issues to get
> their teeth into.

As far as I'm concerned there is *no* more pressing issue in cycling right now than making sure the
misguided fools at the DfT don't destroy the green shoots of recovery in UK cycling by introducing a
law which, everywhere it's been tried, has had no effect on injury rates and caused a massive
reduction in cycling.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"David Martin" <d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:BC46DCF3.C003%d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk...

> I presume you carry a lightning conductor around with you.

LOL :-) :-)
--
Regards, Pete

"Peter Taylor" <peter@fponline.co.uk> writes:

> I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.

You certainly are. Why do we have to re-open this time after time? The research has been done, the
verdict is in. Increased helmet wearing does not make any measurable difference to serious injuries
and deaths in whole population studies. Consequently *if* - as I believe - helmets do save some
lives that would otherwise have been lost in some accidents, they must logically cause at least as
many deaths where lives would not otherwise have been lost.

You can't escape that. It's an uncomfortable fact, but it's a fact. You are _exactly_ as likely to
be killed or seriously injured wearing a helmet as not. You're less likely to have minor cuts and
bruises, and you may psychologically feel safer. But that's all.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

See one nuclear war, you've seen them all.

This months Audax magazine carried a small amusing piece...

According to a Dr Palmer, of the west of England, the most common sporting head injury he treats is
from golf. Now whether this is down to the numbers playing the game, or the inherent risks....

Legislation for compulsory golf helmets can only be around the corner.

--
NC - Webmaster for http://www.2mm.org.uk/ Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.

John Hearns wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:13:03 +0000, Peter Taylor wrote:
>
>
>
>>And anyone who would serious consider riding on or off road without one needs their head examining
>>(and probably will, by a medic if lucky, or a pathologist if not) It is a basic, sensible
>>precaution.
>
>
> Oh Lord. YAHH (yet another helmet thread) But I can't help but reply. Sorry. Me, I mostly choose
> to wear a helmet.
>
> But Peter, please go to Holland. Stand on any high street, and start shouting at the shoppers,
> students, grannies and mums and dads with kids on the crossbar, not a helmet to be seen
> amongst them.
>

True enough, but how much motorised traffic are they cycling amongst?

--
Chris

NC wrote:

> This months Audax magazine carried a small amusing piece...
>
> According to a Dr Palmer, of the west of England, the most common sporting head injury he treats
> is from golf. Now whether this is down to the numbers playing the game, or the inherent risks....
>
> Legislation for compulsory golf helmets can only be around the corner.
>
>
There is a footpath near us that runs through a golf course. There are (were?) helmets available for
use by walkers passing through.

Peter Taylor wrote:
> I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.
>
> Frankly, I really don't give a toss whether helmet wearing is compulsory or voluntary -

Then why bother posting this diatribe. Back under the bridge.

In article <bvrcnb$7pk$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,

>"Peter Taylor" <peter@fponline.co.uk> wrote in message news:bvr96v$c19$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>> I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.
>
>Yup :-) An understanding of the counter-intuitive issues.

As David Martin points out, one of those counter-intuitive issues is a grasp of elementary
statistics.

>> And anyone who would serious consider riding on or off road without one needs their head
>> examining (and probably will, by a medic if lucky, or a pathologist if not) It is a basic,
>> sensible precaution.
>
>Part of your problem lies here : the answer is not "probably". In fact it's reasonably unlikely.
>Millions of riders around the world manage to demonstrate this.

That is true.

>I assume you've read the core facts in the various discussions :
>
>1) Helmets ought to make you safer in the event of a collision

That is not a fact. The science and evidence is fairly balanced as to whether they are more likely
to reduce or increase brain damage. We simply don't know which, if either.

>2) Studies of head injuries show that the number of them doesn't seem to be related to the
> proportion of people wearing helmets at all.

That is true.

>Now isn't that a bit strange? Fact 2 seems to imply fact 1 isn't true. Fact 2 also seems to imply
>that wearing a helmet isn't the 'basic, sensible precaution' you say.

Yes.

>So, how do you reconcile these two facts?

Divine inspiration. As given to his poodledom, Holy Tony.

Regards, Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bvro0d$fl6$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...

> >I assume you've read the core facts in the various discussions :
> >
> >1) Helmets ought to make you safer in the event of a collision
>
> That is not a fact. The science and evidence is fairly balanced as to whether they are more likely
> to reduce or increase brain damage. We simply don't know which, if either.

Note my use of the word 'ought' :-)

cheers, clive

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:05:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk>
wrote:

>Consequently *if* - as I believe - helmets do save some lives that would otherwise have been lost
>in some accidents, they must logically cause at least as many deaths where lives would not
>otherwise have been lost.

Although to be fair Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: they somply don't prevent the most
serious injuries.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:01:57 -0000, "NC" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>According to a Dr Palmer, of the west of England, the most common sporting head injury he treats is
>from golf. Now whether this is down to the numbers playing the game, or the inherent risks....

Note to self: remove flag from 'bent when riding past walkspoiling courses ;-)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk