Cycling UK Forum

Lovely, I've managed to be censored. Supply your own expletive.

Mike Sales

Should cyclist's what cheer up?
You know when someone says "cheer up, it may never happen" and you want to strangle the [rude word removed]?

Mike Sales

ianr1950 wrote:I have not argued either for or against any argument, what I have said is that statistics can be manipulated to present a picture that represents the point of view of what you want.

And I have asked you to point out the manipulation involved in the several cases where the different government figures show no benefit from big increases in helmet wearing. In some cases the figures suggest that the laws made things worse. Am I to believe that you cannot justify your assertion in this case, that you are merely casting nasturtiums?

ianr1950 wrote:Is it wrong to argue for the use anything which in this instance is helmets even though the evidence only points to a very small percentage safety benefit.

If, by this, you mean that the evidence shows a benefit, even if small, you are wrong. The figures, sometimes positive, sometimes negative, are just not good enough to conclude that helmets help or harm.
My own belief is that since helmeteers lay so much weight on the importance of using helmets, it would be likely that users over risk compensate, and by expecting too much protection from the plastic hat, incur more risk than they aim for. However, this is just my idle speculation, utterly without evidence and only mentioned out of naughtiness.

Mike Sales

ianr1950 wrote:-
<:?: Do you believe everything the governments tell you then >

I don't think they lie when saying, "Last year we counted x many head injuries to cyclists on the road", and especially when it is in their interest to prove that helmets work I don't think they fiddle the figures to show they don't work.

<What I am saying is that any statistics can very often be interpreted in a variety of ways to prove whatever point you may want to emphasize.>

I ask again, how do you think these figures have been misinterpreted? The counts are done by the governments which introduced the laws, and all show that injuries and deaths reduce less than the number of cyclists. The same results have happened in all countries or states which have introduced a law. The interpretation is minimal. It is done out in the open, the papers doing it are available on the web to criticise. If you can't find them I can help.

Mike Sales

Gisen made some points about Muslim women. Perhaps he would agree with the Saudi law which bans women from driving? I have never noticed a woman driving in a burqa in this country. Is it a problem here? Gisen should stop worrying about it. I do see lots of heavily tinted windows.
If one can see where a driver is looking it gives a valuable clue as to their intentions, though you would be foolish to think that because they are looking in your direction that they must have seen you.

Mike Sales

ianr1950 wrote:-

<Statistics can prove anything you want them to depending on how they are presented.>

So, do you therefore ignore all statistics and rely on common sense, or do you make sure statistics are used properly? The latter is the scientific approach, which is the method by which we have greatly increase our understanding of the world.
The statistics which show helmets don't work are those collected by the governments which made helmets compulsory. They show that head injuries to cyclists go down after a law, but by less than cycling. This has happened in several different countries. The interpretation is limited to very simple arithmetic. Please point out any trickery.

Mike Sales

It really is very difficult, perhaps impossible. Some cyclists prefer a cycle path, however bad, to a busy road, others (like me) dislike almost any cycle facility. How far would you walk to avoid what length of A road? I cannot see how this project could produce the "best" route. It depends so much on one's own preferences.
Locally, the programme makes an odd choice on the journey I make most. It chooses a route which is both longer and busier than my usual one, and than my alternative. In the village it makes a longer choice presumably because this is even quieter, but seems rather perverse to me, since my choice is quite sufficiently quiet.

Mike Sales

Did you take that photo, Thirdcrank? I thought it was illegal to photograph the police these days.

Mike Sales

Left leg in my case. I returned to cycling 35 plus years ago because of a damaged right hip. Up to a couple of years ago i managed to ride well (CTC run standard, 700 miles in a week, Wild Wales Challenge) with a deteriorating hip. My right thigh was always a contrast to my left, but I found it's amazing how well the body can adapt. My legs were/are different lengths too. One thing, the heart/lung can only put out so much, so if one leg uses less, the other can use more.
I've just had a new hip joint fitted (titaniun as well as other exotic materials) so I'm now trying to get back on the bike.

Mike Sales

Bananaman wrote;_

<Force=mass*acceleration

Helmets reduce the rate of deceleration in a collision, hence reducing the force experienced.

Pressure=Force/Area

Helmets further spread the (reduced) force over a wider area, hence reducing the pressure on any single point of your skull. This is then highly likely to mitigate the extent of any injury suffered.>


Is this your basis for calling the arguments against helmet efficacy "rubbish"? Do you believe that this is all that can be known about how helmets work in the real world, so any evidence which shows they don't work must be distorted, probably wilfully? Have you read any of the articles which actually examine the results of helmet compusion?
If helmets do reduce deceleration do you have any evidence that they do so sufficiently to do any good? They are after all designed to meet a standard which tests them to only 12MPH. This is well within the impact speed which evolution has designed our skulls to cope with.
When you say that pressure spreading is highly likely to mitigate, do you in fact have evidence that it does?
I hope that it is not solely on the above basis that you accuse those who don't believe that helmets work, of "spouting nonsense."

Mike Sales

Bananaman wrote

<I have argued my views in a rational way, before on this forum.>

Before my time as a member. Could you summarize them, please?

<This time all I am arguing, is that if you are really sure of your views, and they are really as well founded as you think, then you really shouldnt have too much to worry about......>

I presume you are referring to the government's review of cycling safety. I lost my faith in the rationality of governments a long time ago. I can't really remember if I ever had any.

Mike Sales

On the whole I think we would be better off without this "scandalous use of resources", on this alone I agree with the stupid hack.

Mike Sales

Bananaman wrote:-

<Given the amount of absolute bunk that is spouted on the contentious issue of helmets.......>

Would you like to explain which bunk and why it is nonsense? I sincerely believe that the evidence shows that helmet wearing does not save lives. I am far from alone on this. Saying that we spout absolute bunk is merely abusive and gets us nowhere. If you disagree, you should explain why. If you are not prepared to do this you will not drag me into any slanging match.
If you read the BHRF site you will find considered discussions of both sides of the question, taking seriously the arguments of the pro helmet side. On the BeHIT site you will find nothing that admits there is any other point of view besides their own.
I think your language shows that your views are based more on emotion than reason.

Mike Sales

vbc prefers anecdote to statistics.

The proof that helmets do not save us from head injuries is indeed statistical. We rely on statistics to decide if drugs work, or cancer treatments are effective. Statistics are often the only tool available to make decisions.
The statistics which show helmets don't work are collected by the governments which pass the mandatory helmet laws (MHLs). They show that the number of head injuries declines after the passage of an MHL, but by less than the decline in the number of cyclists. Anti MHL people (not anti helmet) interpret this to show that helmets don't protect. After all, if helmets work we should be able to tell. There may be faults in the method of collection of these figures, but the method does not change, so results should be consistent. The result is the same in different countries which pass MHLs and in countries which experience a rapid, large rise in helmet wearing like Britain, (though here the absence of a law obviously means that the deterrent effect is less clear).
I cannot imagine how confounding factors in different countries could always combine to negate any benefit from helmets. Why have different weather, legislation, population density. traffic laws not exagerrated the benefit in one of the jurisdictions?
How come these factors always combine to cancel any reduction in head injuries? They are the same before and after MHL passage.
I am sorry to hear about your nasty injuries. I can understand that it is tempting to believe that a helmet could have made a difference. The evidence is that a scrap of expanded polystyrene is not effective. The only time in fifty years of cycling that I banged my head in a fall I was wearing a cotton casquette and escaped with a bruise to the side of the head and a graze. I draw no conclusions from this.
The government has more than once said that if helmet wearing reaches a sufficiently high level they will make it compulsory. Unfortunately helmet wearing is taken as a vote for a MHL.
The countries with MHLs have low levels of cycling and high injury and death rates (in spite of helmets). Cycling decreases after MHLs are passed, but injury rates don't. The countries with MHLs also have the highest obesity rates. USA, Australia and New Zealand are not countries we should copy when it comes to cycling.


Mike Sales

ianr1950 wrote

<We have more reason to be worried about the pollution that the emerging nations are contributing than what the relatively small amount that large cars contribute in this country.>

Many a mickle makes a muckle, or does CO2 which comes in small amounts not count? If we reckon the Chinese emissions by county not country does this help at all? Of course not, every gram adds up.
A fair approach has been suggested called "contract" and converge". This involves working out how much CO2 the planet can sustain, and dividing this amount by the population of the planet, to find how much per person is OK. Since, historically, Western nations produced most of what is in the atmosphere already, it is arguable that we should be given a smaller ration. Rating a person's CO2 footprint as 2 or whatever planet's worth is implicitly saying that that person is using twice or whatever their fair share. Saying that it is only a tiny fraction of the race's total is ridiculous.

Mike Sales