helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Peter Clinch on 17 May 2010 15:10 Tom Crispin wrote: > On Mon, 17 May 2010 10:03:20 +0100, Peter Clinch > <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Tom Crispin wrote: >> >>> Oh... I know the point you are making. >> You still show a remarkable lack of understanding about it though. > > Apart from being flamebait, there's nothing of substance to it. That you think there's nothing of substance belies your lack of understanding. There is something to it, as others have grasped. That you either can't or won't doesn't mean there's nothing there. 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: JMS jmsmith2010 on 17 May 2010 15:28 On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:54:27 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7--ct(a)cam.ac.uk> wrote: >In message <858dboF3kmU1(a)mid.individual.net> > Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Derek C wrote: >> >> > I feel far from bomb proof when riding a bike, with or without a >> > helmet, especially when being continuously overtaken by a stream of >> > fast moving (by bicycle standards) cars and lorries. I am certainly >> > not prepared to take any more risks just because I am wearing a >> > helmet! >> >> It's not entirely unheard of for people to refuse to go out without >> a helmet. So if they're going at all into what they perceive is a >> risky environment then they're taking greater risks because if they >> didn't wear the helmet, they wouldn't be in what they think is the >> risky environment. >> >> It's not about feeling invulnerable, it's about being there at all. >> >> Pete. > >Precisely it's not that all people modify their behaviour to the same >extent or even in the same direction, and within a population the >average change might be small. > >But it is also quite clear that some people modify their behaviour in a >radical way i.e. by making a decision that the risks of cycling are only >made acceptable by wearing a helmet. I am sure that there must be much scientific research in to this matter. Do you perhaps know of any which shows that cyclists take more risks when wearing a helmet? Or - perhaps there is no such scientific evidence? -- Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 17 May 2010 15:44 On Mon, 17 May 2010 11:43:08 -0700 (PDT), Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >On 17 May, 19:32, JMS <jmsmith2...(a)live.co.uk > wrote: >> On Mon, 17 May 2010 15:13:51 +0100, Tony Raven <tra...(a)gotadsl.co.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. >> >> <snip> >> >> Simple question for you: >> >> Do you think that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce the risk of >> injury in a cycle accident than it will increase the risk of injury? > >Do you honestly expect a straightforward and honest answer from the >anti-helmet brigade? > >Derek C I like to ask it now and again. It tickles me that they refuse to answer. I have no idea why.
From: Peter Clinch on 17 May 2010 16:34 Derek C wrote: > Arguments used by the anti-helmet faction: Who /are/ these "anti helmet" faction? > 1) Cycling is so safe that there is no need to wear a helmet! > > No it isn't. Only 2% of journeys in the UK are made by bicycle and are > probably not very long, but cyclists make up 9% of the reported killed > and seriously injured in road accidents. Some other cyclists (e.g. > Doug) are always complaining about how vulnerable they are. The > accident rate per kilometre travelled must be greater than for most > other means of transport. Actually the accident rate per unit distance is quite close (though IIRC a little less) than that for walking. The production of serious head injuries is pretty similar for walking. So if cycling is so dangerous that you ought to wear a helmet, you ought to wear one for being a similarly at risk pedestrian. > 2) Cyclists who wear helmets take greater risks, that is 'risk > compensation'. > > At best unproven. Seems to translate as "I don't believe it". > 3) Cycle helmets provide inadequate protection. > > Possibly, because they have to be light and well ventilated, but > hospital studies suggest a big reduction in serious head injuries for > cyclists that wear them. The BMA is in favour of helmet wearing. But population stusies don't. You've often had the holes in your favourite quoted studies shown to you. They don't go away just by saying them over and over again. That the BMA is in favour doesn't mean much. If you actually read their full position document you can find plenty of holes in it. Point that out to them and they shrug it off with emotive hand wringing (I know, I tried). > 4) Motorists are more likely to cut up cyclists who wear helmets when > overtaking: > > Pretty dubious claim. But with evidence to back it up. So again seems to translate as "I don't believe it". > The one paper on this > subject by Dr Ian Walker uses some pretty dodgy statistics and biased > graphs to 'prove' this point. Tiume and again you've demonstarted your own grasp of stats is not good enough to criticise much. > 5) Anyone who is in favour of helmets doesn't understand statistics. Not true at all. But it is often the case that those who raise arguments like those above haven't read or understood the literature and have a very poor understanding of risk. It is remarkably common to have a poor understanding of it so it's not the end of the world. All you need to be in favour of wearing helmets is a personal preference to wear one. That's a great reason to wear one. In Tim Gill's excellent study for the National Children's Bureau he goes through the arguments at some length and shows he understands the literature and issues well. He ends up by saying he wears a helmet by preference but that it's really down to a preference rather than clear-cut evidence and logic. If that's your reason you shouldn't confuse it, as you appear to, with having comprehensively read and understood the literature and having its conclusions underpinning a no-brainer choice, and having a completely consistent approach to risk of head injuries across your other activities. It remains the case that you're simply rationalising your gut-feeling on the matter. I don't have any problem with you wearing your lid because /you just want to/, I *do* have a problem with you suggesting I'm an idiot not to and that I'm "anti helmet", and that there's overwhelming high quality evidence to support either of those stances. 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: JMS jmsmith2010 on 17 May 2010 16:53
On Mon, 17 May 2010 21:34:09 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >Derek C wrote: > >> Arguments used by the anti-helmet faction: > >Who /are/ these "anti helmet" faction? > >> 1) Cycling is so safe that there is no need to wear a helmet! >> >> No it isn't. Only 2% of journeys in the UK are made by bicycle and are >> probably not very long, but cyclists make up 9% of the reported killed >> and seriously injured in road accidents. Some other cyclists (e.g. >> Doug) are always complaining about how vulnerable they are. The >> accident rate per kilometre travelled must be greater than for most >> other means of transport. > >Actually the accident rate per unit distance is quite close (though >IIRC a little less) than that for walking. The production of >serious head injuries is pretty similar for walking. Absolute Rubbish Do you really believe that if you tell lies often enough they become fact? Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631 Do your brats wear cycle helmets? I cannot understand why you will not answer that question. -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea) |