Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> If you think your "evidence" proves anything you have clearly taken GCSE
> statistics and think you understand significantly more.

From my observations you didn't even make it to GCSE. I don't know what
you do but don't go into research as a career because you are not cut
out for it.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> I agree, but please lets at least present these people decent data, not data
> dragged up by pro or anti helmet campaigns who have a point to prove! Its
> amazing what you can extract from figures if you really want to. Lies, damn
> lies and statistics.
>

You probably think Richard Doll got it wrong too.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[David Martin]

On Oct 15, 11:43 pm, "Coyoteboy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > How do you know, or is this yet more proof by assertion? If they
> > reduce the severity of most impacts, why do they not result in a
> > reduction inn head injury rates? Something does not add up.
>
> As stated by the majority of these links provided:
> "Helmets are designed to protect against abrasions, 'spread the load' and
> reduce the magnitude of applied force."
> They are designed to reduce low-level loading on the skull and do reduce
> this loading. In heavy impacts they are of lesser use, I agree. What is the
> cross-over point and how does that relate to real life - thats an
> interesting question.

So, how would you propose to study that?

Personally I would look at what effect making people wear helmets has.
We know what the design criteria for helmets are. We know what the
KSI figures are and a breakdown of the injury types. We know what has
happened to cycling levels. That should be enough to see whether the
current standards are effective and what impact they have on society.
We can even quantify the cost benefit of these changes.

We can compare injury types with UK and make a reasoned extrapolation
on upper and lower bounds for the effect one would expect to see here.
Yes it is not precise, but it is close enough to base policy on.

So , are we interested in preventing a load of low grade injuries,
which, as a proportion of such injuries nationally pretty much fall
off the radar? And in order to achieve that we make everyone incur a
financial penalty. And we discourage a healthy and safe activity (for
the majority, it's hardly likely the extreme sports guys will hang up
their helmets cos now they must wear them),particularly amongst the
young - we know from other countries and from small studies in UK that
the biggest effect is on the young when habits are being formed for a
lifetime.

Because whenever we look at any other country in the world, whenever
we look at longitudinal studies in UK, we see no detectable effect on
KSI rates, save for a risk increase which is attributable to the
'safety in numbers' effect.

I really don't see how you can rationally dismiss this data. I can
understand you may have issues with the interpretation, in which case
why not air them and engage in an appropriate discussion?

...d

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
[email protected] says...
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Coyoteboy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Helmets reduce the severity of most impacts.
>
> How do you know, or is this yet more proof by assertion? If they
> reduce the severity of most impacts, why do they not result in a
> reduction inn head injury rates? Something does not add up.
>
It's obvious - helmeted cyclists have more accidents.

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
> [email protected] says...
> > On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Coyoteboy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > How do you know, or is this yet more proof by assertion? If they
> > reduce the severity of most impacts, why do they not result in a
> > reduction inn head injury rates? Something does not add up.
> >
> It's obvious - helmeted cyclists have more accidents.
>

Certainly the evidence IIRC is helmeted cyclists are seven times more
likely to hit their head in an accident than an unhelmeted ones. Even
the strong helmet proponent Brent Hagel has found helmeted children
who'd had accidents had ridden their bikes faster and suffered more
damage to their bikes than the helmet-less ones.


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Coyoteboy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > There's no point trying to prove it to you. It would be like trying
> > to prove to you that a cloudless midday sky looks blue. You know
> > better, and nothing anyone can say is going to shake your absolute
> > certainty that it's green. Why bother spending 10 seconds to look up
> > when you _ALREADY__KNOW_ that it's green?
>
> Indeed. When did schools kick out? Really, if you cant provide
> evidence dont bother claiming to have tested it! I will be testing
> it when I think of a way of testing dragging a head across
> pavement. Can you advise me on how you did it in order to help me
> corroborate your claims?

Yet again, more waffle. Just try it.

I've already told you - I have no interest in making you believe the
result. I've told you the result, I've given you easy method to test
it for yourself, take it or leave it.

I'm just not interested - your opinion on the matter is worthless,
because I KNOW the result. I've tested it. Why would I argue with
you? As I posted, there's just no point - you can assert the sky is
green as much as you like, it doesn't affect my certainty about the
situation, it merely reinforces my assessment of how worthwhile it
might be taking your opinions seriously.

Or you could carry on wringing your hands about how you know you're
right, so right you don't need any evidence to support your claim, but
won't be doing the test because it's far too easy. Oh yes, and
everyone else is wrong because their evidence is not completely
flawless.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Peter Clinch]

Coyoteboy wrote:

> Experience tells me there's people that argue both sides with equal
> determination and neither can prove their points one way or the other
> with any real science that doesnt commecne from a biased point of view
> (looking at helmet literature presented on several websites).

A poor assessment, I'd say, that doesn't take account of how scientific
method works (or ought to work...). You start with a question, "do
these work", you look at the evidence and you come to a conclusion. The
helmet-sceptic conclusion is that there isn't good enough evidence to
conclude lids do much, which is pretty much exactly the case you've
suggested elsewhere yourself. By contrast, the pro-helmet camp take
remarkably selective evidence to "prove" helmets wonderful, which is
very different indeed.

The default case, with not enough evidence, is "not proven". Yet
despite acknowledging that you go on to say they probably help in the
majority of cases. Thus it is quite clear that your own view is biased,
and it is not at all clear that helmet sceptics (note that is not
"anti-helmet") are biased.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Coyoteboy wrote:

> That was one of the first and easiest pages to dismiss as being biased
> and presenting results that are a great example of "here we took these
> results and they show this, therefore these other results must prove
> this"!

Please cite specific examples/pages. You've already demonstrated a
clear bias yourself, in acknowleging there is insufficient data to
*prove* things either way but despite that concluding they're a good
thing. Becuase you have an in-built bias you see a less biased place as
clearly biased...

>I've been through this in the past, I cant see any reports in
> that bunch that I would consider worthy of a second look due to obvious
> flaws in their creation.

Righto, what are the "obvious flaws" in Hewson's papers? Cite please.

> I'm open minded, id prefer to ride "sans
> helmet" as it feels nice to have the wind in your hair. But I've also
> bounced my head on the floor plenty of times at high speeds, into
> concrete, cars, trees, gravel and have yet to experience any time when
> the helmet may have caused more damage.

That's /remarkably/ careless of you!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Rob Morley wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Coyoteboy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Helmets reduce the severity of most impacts.
>>
>> How do you know, or is this yet more proof by assertion? If they
>> reduce the severity of most impacts, why do they not result in a
>> reduction inn head injury rates? Something does not add up.
>>
>It's obvious - helmeted cyclists have more accidents.

It's not quite so obvious. Either helmeted cyclists have more accidents,
or helmets make some accidents worse by enough to balance the injury
figures (or both, as I personally suspect).

Say, as a made up example, that 90% of accidents result only in minor
scratches and bruising when unhelmeted, and that helmets make all of them
less severe, and 10% of them result in brain injury caused by sudden
rotation of the head, and helmets make all of them worse.
Result, helmets both reduce the severity of most impacts and also increase
the severity of significant injuries.

More realistic injury patterns could lead to the observed "no reduction"
without helmeted cyclists having more accidents. But the only way we
would really be able to tell would be to take two very large groups of
cyclists and make half of them chosen _at random_ wear helmets and then
compare the accident rates - otherwise we can only compare the accident
rates of cyclists who chose to wear helmets and those who don't, and any
difference could be that accident prone cyclists wear helmets, or that
risk taking cyclists don't. (Or, where helmets are compulsary, that
law breaking cyclists behave differently from law abiding ones.)

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Clive George <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:
> "Coyoteboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I see it as the only way of getting a tester done to prove it one
>> way or another. As you say, it would be hard to get anyone to
>> explain that it didn't work, but any results are better than the
>> half-made-up cobbled together, unrelated rubbish put out by some
>> websites...
>
> It's the only way to prove precisely what effect introducing an MHL
> will have on this country. But
>
> a) Do you think settling an argument is a good reason to introduce
> law? I don't.
> b) Do you think that the experience offered by other countries offers
> no helpful information whatsoever? That over here, we're completely
> and utterly unique, and have nothing in common with other people?


You forgot:

c) How many times has the gubbinsment put its collective hands up and said
"OK, you were right, we were wrong. X /doesn't/ work. We'll repeal the law
immediately and give you your money back"

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Never give a gun to ducks.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Clive George <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:
> "Coyoteboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> You are so ****-sure about it why dont you prove me wrong instead of
>> telling me I talk bollocks and dont back anything up, without
>> backing it up?
>
> You're taking the **** in this thread, aren't you.


Either that or he's living proof that wearing a MartleHat causes irreparable
brain damage ;-)

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
A *National* Socialist Government did you say, Mr. Chaplin?

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Coyoteboy <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:


> I've also bounced my head on the floor plenty of times at high
> speeds, into concrete, cars, trees, gravel and have yet to experience
> any time when the helmet may have caused more damage.

Have you considered learning how to ride a bicycle?

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Never trust a man with more than one moustache.

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Coyoteboy wrote:
>
> > Experience tells me there's people that argue both sides with equal
> > determination and neither can prove their points one way or the other
> > with any real science that doesnt commecne from a biased point of view
> > (looking at helmet literature presented on several websites).
>
> A poor assessment, I'd say, that doesn't take account of how scientific
> method works (or ought to work...).

It also means that Coyoteboy favours the Creationist theory of the world
- because there is a strong argument it means that Evolution theorists
can't be trusted. It explains then why he follows faith rather than
science in his views on helmets too.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Roger Merriman]

Coyoteboy <[email protected]> wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Let's look at this another way,
> >
> > How many people do you see on the road who are wearing a helmet,
> > proportionally to those who are not?
> >
> > Sniper8052
>
> On my daily 34 mile commute? I see (on average) 7 or 8 other cyclists. I see
> one non-helmeted person and I see him at he same point every day, ~1 mile
> from work. Why? I must admit that I expect to see more non-helmeted
> commuters but this isnt the case in the Liverpool area. Maybe the "serious"
> cyclists stay away from commuter routes?

as genural rule, the more 'serious' cyclist's in my experance wear
helmets.

ie lycra clad all the gear etc.

it's the onces wearing jeans and a shirt that don't. very few wear the
gear with out a helmet.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Peter Clinch]

Roger Merriman wrote:

> as genural rule, the more 'serious' cyclist's in my experance wear
> helmets.
>
> ie lycra clad all the gear etc.

I think that is a perception of "all the gear" including a helmet.

It /is/ a common-sense thing that helmets make you safer, and it is a
pervasive feeling in the UK that cycling is dangerous. So without
realising that actually it isn't especially dangerous (and government
figures show us it isn't), or that helmets don't have a track record of
making you safer, and most people don't realise either, you have a
situation where it's normal for "serious" cyclists to wear helmets.
This is backed up by advertising, and an increasing trend for people to
want "all the gear" to do anything much these days.

> it's the onces wearing jeans and a shirt that don't. very few wear the
> gear with out a helmet.

Because it's seen that a helmet is part of "the gear" by many, is my
perception. I certainly used to think that way.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> Because it's seen that a helmet is part of "the gear" by many, is my
> perception. I certainly used to think that way.
>

I wonder whether its even simpler than that. People seem to buy the
gear of their favourite rider team, and some even a look alike of the
bike they ride on. Given that all the teams have to wear helmets its an
easy step to wear the helmet as part of the look alike image without any
consideration of other factors. I wear functional gear and don't wear a
helmet - I have no interest in being seen in what the professionals
wear.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
>Coyoteboy wrote:
>> helmet" as it feels nice to have the wind in your hair. But I've also
>> bounced my head on the floor plenty of times at high speeds, into
>> concrete, cars, trees, gravel and have yet to experience any time when
>> the helmet may have caused more damage.
>
>That's /remarkably/ careless of you!

Risk compensation in action? Or evidence that, unlike the cycling population
as a whole, he does get an overall benefit from his helmet? (Not that that
would be a good excuse for introducing legal enforcement "as an experiment".
Cambridgeshire County Council introduced a ban on bikes in the city centre
"as an experiment", then continued it because the evidence that it was a
failure wasn't strong enough. It has, years later, finally been largely
overturned.)

 

[Peter Clinch]

Tony Raven wrote:

> I wonder whether its even simpler than that. People seem to buy the
> gear of their favourite rider team, and some even a look alike of the
> bike they ride on. Given that all the teams have to wear helmets its an
> easy step to wear the helmet as part of the look alike image without any
> consideration of other factors. I wear functional gear and don't wear a
> helmet - I have no interest in being seen in what the professionals
> wear.

Up to a point, but while I think it's fair to say I'm a fairly committed
cyclist, and a bit of a gear-junkie, I only have a vague notion of
professional riders and teams. For those of us who don't really follow
cycling as a sport and/or ride with the local Chain Gang that doesn't
really apply, and yet it's still easy to see a lid as something "proper"
cyclists wear.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Alan Braggins wrote:

> Risk compensation in action? Or evidence that, unlike the cycling population
> as a whole, he does get an overall benefit from his helmet?

Could quite possibly be both: he rides in a crash-likely manner because
he likes to ride that way, and since he likes to ride that way it's
worth wearing extra protection.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, Rob Morley wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>, Ian Smith
> >> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Coyoteboy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Helmets reduce the severity of most impacts.
> >>
> >> How do you know, or is this yet more proof by assertion? If they
> >> reduce the severity of most impacts, why do they not result in a
> >> reduction inn head injury rates? Something does not add up.
> >>
> >It's obvious - helmeted cyclists have more accidents.
>
> It's not quite so obvious. Either helmeted cyclists have more accidents,
> or helmets make some accidents worse by enough to balance the injury
> figures (or both, as I personally suspect).
>
You're right of course - I didn't want to dilute the impact of a simple
statement with broader considerations because it would have reduced the
impact/comic effect (depending on whether you take the journalistic or
cynically bemused approach to the grand hat debate). ;^>