helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Derek C on 8 May 2010 09:45 On 4 May, 13:48, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > Derek C wrote: > > You seem to to leap on any report from any nutty American academic > > that agrees with your point of view. > > You seem to have missed on how I got started with my present feelings on > the subject. My opinions were much as yours are now but having been > told things were not as I thought I decided I'd counter the arguments > against my stance with a trip to the library and return fire with good > evidence backing me up. After all, I'm a science professional with a > medical research library a few minutes from my desk, so I had the skills > and the materials. > And after a while I came to realise that, actually, things were not as I > had thought, and I couldn't find anything decent to return fire with. > So I changed what I thought so it fitted the evidence, rather than > selectively re-quoting the evidence to fit my preconceived opinions. > > That you think I'm persuaded primarily by "nutty American academics" > just shows how little attention you've been paying. I've read and > assessed work by numerous nationalities. The Hewson paper I've > suggested you read, for example, is by a British (at least by residence) > statistician working for a UK local authority, so I don't see how that > fits in with "nutty American academic". Have you read it yet? Another > thing I've suggested you read is Wardlaw's "3 lessons for a better > cycling future", and that's by a non-American non-academic too. I'm > actually intrigued as to which American academics you think I'm in > thrall to? Would you name names please? > > > Both the accident statistics and > > all of the reputable reports suggest a link between helmet wearing and > > reduced head injuries and KSI for cyclists. > > For "reputable" I take it as meaning "say what I've decided they ought > to say". As has been pointed out to you at some length by Mike Clark, > your correlation between lowering KSIs and increases in helmet wearing > as some sort of objective statistical analysis showing how effective > helmets are is, at best, "lacking in rigour". > > If "all" of the good evidence said what you say it does then there > wouldn't be any controversy. As it is, when you get the original work > in your hands and assess it as close to objectively as you can then the > "Big Win for Helmets" side of the evidence simply doesn't stand up. As > you'd know if you /really/ read it (and I don't mean stopping at the > abstracts or starting with the conclusions). > OK, let us look at this logically. If helmets don't reduce casualties, then only the following factors could cause this: 1) Cyclists rarely fall on their heads. 2) Cyclists take more risks when wearing helmets. 3) Cycle helmets are not sufficiently strong to withstand significant impacts. We know that factor one is not true because 38% of cycling casualties admitted to hospital have head or face injuries. Factor two is debatable, although the participants in deliberately high risk cycling such as downhill MTB do wear helmets. I don't think it's an issue in normal day to day commuter type cycling. As cycle helmets have to be light and well ventilated, they are possibly not as strong as they could be, but I believe that they are adequate for most of the types of accidents that cyclists have. All the reading I have done suggests that helmet wearing does significantly reduce KSI figures for cyclists, especially for death specifically from head injuries. Derek C
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 8 May 2010 10:21 On Sat, 8 May 2010 08:37:19 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: <snip> >Please supply the pictures - or rather more simply, just supply the >article itself. ============================================================================ From: JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > Newsgroups: uk.transport,uk.rec.driving,cam.transport,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: helmets increase danger Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:08:57 +0100 Lines: 19 Message-ID: <9bugt5p1t3qeppg3dpdmujvs91i2burtgj(a)4ax.com> <snip> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:19:11 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7--ct(a)cam.ac.uk> wrote: <snip> >I don't recall your answering my question as to whether you are pepared >to regularly ride a bicycle when not wearing a helmet? Are there cycling >situations when you do wear a helmet and others when you don't? > >It would seem to be an easy question for you to answer, but so far >you've managed to avoid the issue. > >Mike Not avoided - didn't notice. I always wear a cycle helmet when riding my bike. ============================================================================ -- "wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being involved in an accident." That august body The CTC (They've already had a slap for lying by the ASA)
From: Mike Clark on 10 May 2010 07:21 In message <1ksau59a7jr1kr6sop7ofsnvd65mci92vv(a)4ax.com> JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > wrote: > On Sat, 8 May 2010 08:37:19 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> > wrote: > > <snip> > > > >Please supply the pictures - or rather more simply, just supply the > >article itself. > > > > ============================================================================ > > > From: JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > > Newsgroups: uk.transport,uk.rec.driving,cam.transport,uk.rec.cycling > Subject: Re: helmets increase danger > Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:08:57 +0100 > Lines: 19 > Message-ID: <9bugt5p1t3qeppg3dpdmujvs91i2burtgj(a)4ax.com> > > <snip> > > > > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:19:11 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7--ct(a)cam.ac.uk> > wrote: > > <snip> > > >I don't recall your answering my question as to whether you are pepared > >to regularly ride a bicycle when not wearing a helmet? Are there cycling > >situations when you do wear a helmet and others when you don't? > > > >It would seem to be an easy question for you to answer, but so far > >you've managed to avoid the issue. > > > >Mike > > > Not avoided - didn't notice. > > I always wear a cycle helmet when riding my bike. > Thanks for the re-post. I certainly haven't seen that posting before, but if I had in the context of my question I would have then pointed out that this would appear to be an example of risk compensation. Wearing a cycling helmet in the UK is not compulsory, thus presumably you are making a personal decision to expose yourself to a perceived risk only when wearing a helmet. i.e. the helmet is modifying your attitude to the risks of cycling. Mike -- o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark <\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, "> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and ` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 15 May 2010 12:38 On Mon, 10 May 2010 12:21:45 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7--ct(a)cam.ac.uk> wrote: <snip> >> I always wear a cycle helmet when riding my bike. >> > >Thanks for the re-post. I certainly haven't seen that posting before, >but if I had in the context of my question I would have then pointed out >that this would appear to be an example of risk compensation. Wearing a >cycling helmet in the UK is not compulsory, thus presumably you are >making a personal decision to expose yourself to a perceived risk only >when wearing a helmet. i.e. the helmet is modifying your attitude to the >risks of cycling. > >Mike Rubbish. I do not ride the bike as a result of wearing a helmet. I wear the helmet as a result of riding the bike. I do not believe that I take extra risks because I am wearing a helmet. I think you are confusing risk compensation with common sense. If I wear a helmet - I believe on balance it will do more good than harm if I am involved in an accident. I am not aware of any research which proves that if one wears a cycle helmet, then one takes more risks. In fact I would go as far to say that there is no evidence of this "phenomena" regarding cycle helmets. It is something which a few smart-arses here have latched on to - so they can say : Oh - you have forgotten about Risk Compensation. I have asked these people (Chapman, Perry, Clinch) time and time again for evidence of risk compensation with regards to wearing cycle helmets. They have no evidence. The best Perry was able to do was refer me some page numbers in a book. He could not even produce a paragraph from those pages which backed up his stance. -- "wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being involved in an accident." That august body The CTC (They've already had a slap for lying by the ASA)
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 15 May 2010 13:48
On Sat, 15 May 2010 18:22:20 +0100, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > wrote: >Hence - cyclists should keep coin the gutter coin : in -- "wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being involved in an accident." That august body The CTC (They've already had a slap for lying by the ASA) |