From: Derek C on
On 7 Apr, 18:46, n...(a)cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <0ad927b2-c9c4-44bd-860f-db5d91c5c...(a)x3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> Derek C  <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> >I am a professional scientist with a Masters degree, and have used
> >statistical data for most of my career, thank you very much. The
> >telling statistic for me is the Police report that suggests that 10
> >-16 % of cyclists who died principally of head injuries probably would
> >have survived if they had worn helmets (subject to the usual medical
> >uncertainties). I shall continue to wear a helmet (my choice).
>
> Hmm.  If you have actually looked at that claim and failed to spot
> the large number of serious statistical defects in it, then your
> understanding of statistics is vastly less than you think it is.
> It's not quite fair to call it statistical nonsense, but it's pretty
> close to it.
>
> Even if it were a reliable estimate (it isn't, but let's skip that),
> it ignores the question of how much more likely helmet wearers are
> to suffer a major head impact in the first place.  The population
> statistics indicate that the increase in that may well be comparable,
> so the aggregate benefit is close to nil.  Which is the REAL issue.
>
> Notice that I am not making any comment on your choice to wear a
> helmet, or carry a rabbit's foot, but merely attempting to correct
> your erroneous claims.
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

The participants in most dangerous high speed sports, such as motor
racing, motorbike racing, downhill skiing, skateboarding, downhill
mountain biking, horse racing, show jumping, etc, etc, wear head
protection of some sort. The sorts of speeds in equestrian events are
similar to cycling.

Before you claim cycling isn't dangerous, I should point out that only
2% of journeys are made by bicycle in the UK, but cyclists make up 9%
of those killed and seriously injured in accidents. Only motorcycling
and horse riding are more dangerous forms of transport.

Risk compensation is difficult to quantify, but KSI figures for car
occupants have plummeted since seat belts were introduced. If risk
compensation was a real effect, you would have expected the KSI
figures to have stayed the same.

Derek C
From: Tony Raven on
nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk wrote:

>>>
>>> The result is that we simply do not know whether wearing a bicycle
>>> helmet is likely to increase or reduce the risk of brain damage.
>>> Either is possible, but the statistics indicate that their effect
>>> is very small, whichever way it is.
>>
>> Typical psycholist reply!
>
> I don't think that you can spell "statistician" :-) I am not the
> only one who has come to that conclusion.
>
>
> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adult_cyclist_head_injuries_versus_helmet_use_in_New_Zealand.svg

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
From: john wright on
On 07/04/2010 20:19, Tony Raven wrote:
> nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> The result is that we simply do not know whether wearing a bicycle
>>>> helmet is likely to increase or reduce the risk of brain damage.
>>>> Either is possible, but the statistics indicate that their effect
>>>> is very small, whichever way it is.
> >>
>>> Typical psycholist reply!
>>
>> I don't think that you can spell "statistician" :-) I am not the
>> only one who has come to that conclusion.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nick Maclaren.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adult_cyclist_head_injuries_versus_helmet_use_in_New_Zealand.svg

If it were up to me I would see no correlation at all between helmet
wearing and head injuries. YMMV

--
John Wright

Use your imagination Marvin!

Life's bad enough as it is - why invent any more of it.
From: Nick Finnigan on
Tony Raven wrote:
> nmm1(a)cam.ac.uk wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> The result is that we simply do not know whether wearing a bicycle
>>>> helmet is likely to increase or reduce the risk of brain damage.
>>>> Either is possible, but the statistics indicate that their effect
>>>> is very small, whichever way it is.
> >>
>>> Typical psycholist reply!
>>
>> I don't think that you can spell "statistician" :-) I am not the
>> only one who has come to that conclusion.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adult_cyclist_head_injuries_versus_helmet_use_in_New_Zealand.svg

A meaningless diagram. Comparable to the '40 30 20' nonsense.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:13:39 +0100, Albert T Cone
<a.k.kirby(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote:

>JMS wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:21:48 +0100, Albert T Cone
>> <a.k.kirby(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> JMS wrote:
>>>> The fact that Walker is a rabid anti-helmet psycholist was sufficient
>>>> reason for mis-representing that data.
>>> There are very good arguments for not wearing a helmet - the pro/con
>>> debate is not at all clear cut.
>>
>> Are you against them by any chance?
>
>No. I don't wear one myself, if you are interested, because I prefer
>the risk of abrasions and blunt trauma injury to those of torsional
>injury to the neck and spine. Other people may weigh those risks
>differently, but I think that it *should* be a personal choice, and I am
>not in favour of making helmet wearing mandatory.


I was not aware that there was any discussion about making helmets
mandatory in the thread.

I do however love the way that those who are actually anti-helmet like
to introduce the "compulsory argument" when all else fails.

Well done.

And the chance of "torsional injury to the neck and spine." through
wearing a helmet is what exactly?