Re: The antidote

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Brian Robertson
('brian@[nospam].com') wrote:

> I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you really
> should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git, but as
> someone with the near death experiences to prove it.

You're not a patronising git, just misinformed and ignorant. Wearing a
helmet very slightly raises (not lowers) your risk of serious head injury
or death, but not sufficiently to make them actively dangerous to wear if
you prefer them. It's not as if this was a serious risk anyway - cycling
is a very safe activity.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.

 

[Nigel Randell]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Brian
> Robertson ('brian@[nospam].com') wrote:
>
>> I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you
>> really should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git,
>> but as someone with the near death experiences to prove it.
>
> You're not a patronising git, just misinformed and ignorant. Wearing a
> helmet very slightly raises (not lowers) your risk of serious head
> injury or death, but not sufficiently to make them actively dangerous
> to wear if you prefer them. It's not as if this was a serious risk
> anyway - cycling is a very safe activity.

Has the slight increase in risk ever been properly quantified?

--

Nigel

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

>
> Has the slight increase in risk ever been properly quantified?
>

The best study for that is the Rodgers one of 8 million US cyclists over
15 years which found "The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-
related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with
increased helmet use."

[Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the
impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products
Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988]

--
Tony

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

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Cycling wearing a helmet is
> slightly more dangerous than cycling not wearing a helmet, but cycling to
> work with or without a helmet is still an awful lot safer - not more
> dangerous - than walking.
>

You forgot to add "and the health benefits of cycling extend your life
expectancy substantially more than the risks decrease it"

--
Tony

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

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>
>>Has the slight increase in risk ever been properly quantified?
>>
>
>
> The best study for that is the Rodgers one of 8 million US cyclists over
> 15 years which found "The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-
> related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with
> increased helmet use."
>
> [Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the
> impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products
> Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988]

Could it have meant that wearers are more likely to be high-mileage
cyclists and thereby more exposed to risk?

The concept seems sound - professional drivers (particularly those
whose hours are not limited) seem also to be more exposed to risk.

 

[DavidR]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
> Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>> The best study for that is the Rodgers one of 8 million US cyclists over
>> 15 years which found "The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-
>> related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with
>> increased helmet use."
>>
>> [Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts
>> of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products
>> Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988]
>
> Could it have meant that wearers are more likely to be high-mileage
> cyclists and thereby more exposed to risk?

I don't have a reference but I think I have read that CTC members have about
a double casualty rate compared to car users by mileage. This compares with
a 14 times average for all cyclists.

 

[Brian Robertson]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Brian Robertson
> ('brian@[nospam].com') wrote:
>
>> I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you really
>> should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git, but as
>> someone with the near death experiences to prove it.
>
> You're not a patronising git, just misinformed and ignorant. Wearing a
> helmet very slightly raises (not lowers) your risk of serious head injury
> or death, but not sufficiently to make them actively dangerous to wear if
> you prefer them. It's not as if this was a serious risk anyway - cycling
> is a very safe activity.
>

And you are a nasty bit of work, so that makes us even. ;-)

Brian.

 

[Brian Robertson]

Tony Raven wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>> Has the slight increase in risk ever been properly quantified?
>>
>
> The best study for that is the Rodgers one of 8 million US cyclists over
> 15 years which found "The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-
> related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with
> increased helmet use."
>
> [Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the
> impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products
> Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988]
>

It is hard for the man in the street to evaluate such studies. At the
moment I am reading two books, one by Richard Dawkins called "The God
Delusion" and one by a top scientist offering the opposite opinion.
These books have obviously been written and published at almost the same
time. It is scary how you can read a quoted 'fact' from a study in one
book, only to pick up the other and find that same study debunked with
equally convincing evidence.

We know very little about everything and, in all probability, will die
largely in ignorance about anything. Facts are subjective.

Brian.

 

[JNugent]

DavidR wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>>The best study for that is the Rodgers one of 8 million US cyclists over
>>>15 years which found "The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-
>>>related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with
>>>increased helmet use."
>>>
>>>[Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts
>>>of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products
>>>Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988]
>>
>>Could it have meant that wearers are more likely to be high-mileage
>>cyclists and thereby more exposed to risk?
>
>
> I don't have a reference but I think I have read that CTC members have about
> a double casualty rate compared to car users by mileage. This compares with
> a 14 times average for all cyclists.

Are CTC members "high mileage" cyclists?

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>, brian@
[nospam].com says...
> >
> > [Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the
> > impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products
> > Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988]
> >
>
> It is hard for the man in the street to evaluate such studies. At the
> moment I am reading two books, one by Richard Dawkins called "The God
> Delusion" and one by a top scientist offering the opposite opinion.
> These books have obviously been written and published at almost the same
> time. It is scary how you can read a quoted 'fact' from a study in one
> book, only to pick up the other and find that same study debunked with
> equally convincing evidence.
>

That is where a scientific training comes in and you need that and to
read the papers in the field to build up a picture of what you can trust
and what you can't. That's the way it works I'm afraid.

A number of those here have that background and have done the work and
can point you to relevant papers. More detailed work has been done by
http://www.cyclehelmets.org and presented in an accessible way if you
are interested to learn more.

--
Tony

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

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
> > Tony Raven wrote:
> >>
> >> The best study for that is the Rodgers one of 8 million US cyclists over
> >> 15 years which found "The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-
> >> related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with
> >> increased helmet use."
> >>
> >> [Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts
> >> of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products
> >> Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988]
> >
> > Could it have meant that wearers are more likely to be high-mileage
> > cyclists and thereby more exposed to risk?
>
> I don't have a reference but I think I have read that CTC members have about
> a double casualty rate compared to car users by mileage. This compares with
> a 14 times average for all cyclists.
>

Kaplan, Jerrold A.; Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User;
MS thesis U of Maryland, 1975.

Accidents per million miles

Children 720
College Associated Adults 500
League of American Bicyclists 113
CTC members 66

The injury rate per km for cyclists is 13 times that for car occupants
[Road Casualties in Great Britain 2006 Table 52]

--
Tony

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

 

[Roger Merriman]

Brian Robertson <brian@[nospam].com> wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >
> >> Has the slight increase in risk ever been properly quantified?
> >>
> >
> > The best study for that is the Rodgers one of 8 million US cyclists over
> > 15 years which found "The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-
> > related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with
> > increased helmet use."
> >
> > [Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the
> > impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products
> > Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988]
> >
>
> It is hard for the man in the street to evaluate such studies. At the
> moment I am reading two books, one by Richard Dawkins called "The God
> Delusion" and one by a top scientist offering the opposite opinion.
> These books have obviously been written and published at almost the same
> time. It is scary how you can read a quoted 'fact' from a study in one
> book, only to pick up the other and find that same study debunked with
> equally convincing evidence.
>
> We know very little about everything and, in all probability, will die
> largely in ignorance about anything. Facts are subjective.
>
> Brian.

no a fact is a fact, rember the fact doesn't have to be 50% of one and
50% of the other it can quite easly be 100% once side.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>>
>> I don't have a reference but I think I have read that CTC members have
>> about a double casualty rate compared to car users by mileage. This
>> compares with a 14 times average for all cyclists.
>
> Kaplan, Jerrold A.; Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User;
> MS thesis U of Maryland, 1975.
>
> Accidents per million miles
>
> Children 720
> College Associated Adults 500
> League of American Bicyclists 113
> CTC members 66
>
> The injury rate per km for cyclists is 13 times that for car occupants
> [Road Casualties in Great Britain 2006 Table 52]

This is more or less what you'd expect - more experienced cyclists are
markedly safer than less experienced cyclists

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:44:46 GMT, Brian Robertson <brian@[nospam]> wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> in message <[email protected]>, Brian Robertson
>> ('brian@[nospam].com') wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you really
>>> should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git, but as
>>> someone with the near death experiences to prove it.
>>
>> You're not a patronising git, just misinformed and ignorant. Wearing a
>> helmet very slightly raises (not lowers) your risk of serious head injury
>> or death, but not sufficiently to make them actively dangerous to wear if
>> you prefer them. It's not as if this was a serious risk anyway - cycling
>> is a very safe activity.
>>
>
> And you are a nasty bit of work, so that makes us even. ;-)

I'm sorry the winkey doesn't excuse that comment.

If you think helmets significantly reduce your risk you are misinformed.
If you haven't read the research you are ignorant about the subject.
Simon wasn't making value judgements about you just describing the
situation.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_