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 17 May 2010 04:23 On 17 May, 00:16, Tony Raven <tra...(a)gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: > Derek C wrote: > > I have pointed out on a number of occasions that many two vehicle > > collisions are glancing blows. A cycle helmet may not provide full > > protection in an absolute head on collision with a vehicle, but it > > will if you just fall off your bike as a result of a glancing > > collision. There is some reasonably good evidence that helmets reduce > > the risk of death, or serious brain injury in even quite high speed > > crashes. > > I haven't seen all the posts because only a subset are cross-posted into > cam.transport but what I have seen is assertions from you that that is > the case but no evidence to back your assertions up. Would you like to > provide some citations for your evidence? (Apologies if I've missed them) > > > Any unnecessary death is one too many, and may leave widows and > > orphaned children behind, so the consequences can be serious. I think > > that I spend far more of my time at home and in the bathroom than I do > > on a bike, so always remember the population effect when quoting > > statistics. > > It seems that you have forgotten the population effect because all that > means is you are much more likely to die from slipping over in the > bathroom than being hit on a bike. So it makes it even more nonsensical > to wear a cycle helmet but not a bathroom helmet > > -- Read some of the abstracts in TRL PPR446, available on-line as a free download, although £45 to buy. The most conservative estimate is that 10-16% of cycling fatalities would have been prevented by wearing helmets. Some American studies claim up to an 85% reduction. Safety in the home and the bathroom, and safety on bicycles are two completely separate issues. We are all going to die eventually, so why bother to take any sensible precautions at all? Let's do away with Health & Safety legislation, seat belts, airbags and crumple zones in vehicles, speed limits, motorcycle helmets, clean drinking water, sanitation, etc, etc. On the other hand it is nice to get your three score years and ten on this planet, and not to get disabled or brain damaged on the way. Derek C
From: Peter Clinch on 17 May 2010 04:40 Derek C wrote: > Read some of the abstracts in TRL PPR446, available on-line as a free > download, although �45 to buy. The most conservative estimate is that > 10-16% of cycling fatalities would have been prevented by wearing > helmets. Some American studies claim up to an 85% reduction. Tony is /very/ well aware of the numbers (you might have noticed his name in the responses to Robinson's 2006 BMJ article and Hagel et als' response piece, which I take it you have read?). I've already pointed out to you some of the glaring statistical holes in the TRL report you like to go on about, but rather than acknowledge them you continue to go on about statistical problems in helmet-sceptic work with no better background to the criticism than "because I say so!". "Some American studies claim up to an 85% reduction" is very typical of the dodgy sleight of hand you claim for the helmet sceptic side. One (singular) study made a claim of 85%, and as Tony is, and you /should/ be, well aware it's a joke (well, not quite, it's not actually funny that something with science that poor got past peer review) and that anyone quoting it is either woefully informed or being some shade of dishonest. > Safety in the home and the bathroom, and safety on bicycles are two > completely separate issues. Up to a point, but both are places where you can sustain a very nasty head injury, and we know that from the real-world track record. If you think it's worth wearing armour to avoid distinctly possible head injuries then it's the *risk* that should drive the decision, not the location. The issue isn't bathroom safety vs. nike safety, it's risk of head injury /wherever it may be/. > We are all going to die eventually, so why > bother to take any sensible precautions at all? Let's do away with > Health & Safety legislation, seat belts, airbags and crumple zones in > vehicles, speed limits, motorcycle helmets, clean drinking water, > sanitation, etc, etc. On the other hand it is nice to get your three > score years and ten on this planet, and not to get disabled or brain > damaged on the way. So re-read your last sentence, assess the actual /risk/ on the stairs and in the bathroom, and tell us why it isn't worth following the same logic there as on your bike. The Grim Reaper is no respecter of location. If you slip on a wet floor with your soapy feet getting out of the bath and strike your head on the very hard, rather pointy, rather solid taps it can be just as bad for you as a glancing blow on a bike meaning you strike your head on the kerb. You might think that The Man Upstairs will send you back as it was /only/ the bathroom, but as Tony's figures illustrate there's no shortage of people who turned out to be wrong about that... 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 p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: Derek C on 17 May 2010 04:57 On 17 May, 09:40, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > Derek C wrote: > > Read some of the abstracts in TRL PPR446, available on-line as a free > > download, although £45 to buy. The most conservative estimate is that > > 10-16% of cycling fatalities would have been prevented by wearing > > helmets. Some American studies claim up to an 85% reduction. > > Tony is /very/ well aware of the numbers (you might have noticed his > name in the responses to Robinson's 2006 BMJ article and Hagel et als' > response piece, which I take it you have read?). > > I've already pointed out to you some of the glaring statistical holes in > the TRL report you like to go on about, but rather than acknowledge them > you continue to go on about statistical problems in helmet-sceptic work > with no better background to the criticism than "because I say so!". > > "Some American studies claim up to an 85% reduction" is very typical of > the dodgy sleight of hand you claim for the helmet sceptic side. One > (singular) study made a claim of 85%, and as Tony is, and you /should/ > be, well aware it's a joke (well, not quite, it's not actually funny > that something with science that poor got past peer review) and that > anyone quoting it is either woefully informed or being some shade of > dishonest. > > > Safety in the home and the bathroom, and safety on bicycles are two > > completely separate issues. > > Up to a point, but both are places where you can sustain a very nasty > head injury, and we know that from the real-world track record. If you > think it's worth wearing armour to avoid distinctly possible head > injuries then it's the *risk* that should drive the decision, not the > location. The issue isn't bathroom safety vs. nike safety, it's risk of > head injury /wherever it may be/. > > > We are all going to die eventually, so why > > bother to take any sensible precautions at all? Let's do away with > > Health & Safety legislation, seat belts, airbags and crumple zones in > > vehicles, speed limits, motorcycle helmets, clean drinking water, > > sanitation, etc, etc. On the other hand it is nice to get your three > > score years and ten on this planet, and not to get disabled or brain > > damaged on the way. > > So re-read your last sentence, assess the actual /risk/ on the stairs > and in the bathroom, and tell us why it isn't worth following the same > logic there as on your bike. > The Grim Reaper is no respecter of location. If you slip on a wet floor > with your soapy feet getting out of the bath and strike your head on the > very hard, rather pointy, rather solid taps it can be just as bad for > you as a glancing blow on a bike meaning you strike your head on the > kerb. You might think that The Man Upstairs will send you back as it > was /only/ the bathroom, but as Tony's figures illustrate there's no > shortage of people who turned out to be wrong about that... > Well I have to say (touch wood) that I have never slipped and banged my head on a hard surface in the bathroom yet, but I have injured myself several times in bicycle accidents, including a fractured upper jaw bone when I bit a very hard kerbstone. I have fallen downstairs once, when my dog came bounding up the stairs just as I was starting down them and I tripped over him. I fell onto a nice soft carpetted floor in the hallway and my only injury was a small broken bone in my wrist. Perhaps we should ban dogs in the home? Derek C
From: Peter Clinch on 17 May 2010 05:03 Tom Crispin wrote: > Oh... I know the point you are making. You still show a remarkable lack of understanding about it though. > But my point is that you making that point again and again is > pointless because it is nothing more than (deliberate) flamebait. Derek's fairly new to the arguments, as we can see by the way he thinks risk of head injury in one place is unrelated to similar risks in another if the decision to be made is whether you protect your head more or not. 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 p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: Peter Clinch on 17 May 2010 05:08
Derek C wrote: > Well I have to say (touch wood) that I have never slipped and banged > my head on a hard surface in the bathroom yet, but I have injured > myself several times in bicycle accidents, including a fractured upper > jaw bone when I bit a very hard kerbstone. I have fallen downstairs > once, when my dog came bounding up the stairs just as I was starting > down them and I tripped over him. I fell onto a nice soft carpetted > floor in the hallway and my only injury was a small broken bone in my > wrist. Perhaps we should ban dogs in the home? What the above shows is you don't properly appreciate one of the fundamental thinsg about risk, chance and probability, which is the degree to which a past event will influence a future one. If I roll a pair of fair dice 10 times and roll no 7s then it doesn't alter the fact that on the 11th roll I'm more likely to get a 7 than anything else. Your odds of a bathroom accident are still very much finite and tangible. Beyond that, most bike helmets don't protect jaws that well, so I take it you've invested in a full-face one to reflect your past experience? 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 p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |