The helmet section?

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
Dave W
Posts: 1483
Joined: 18 Jul 2012, 4:17pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Dave W » 29 Sep 2016, 7:11pm


Dave W
Posts: 1483
Joined: 18 Jul 2012, 4:17pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Dave W » 29 Sep 2016, 7:20pm

Maybe this?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... tudy-finds


That's kind of cocked things up a bit don't you think?

Mike Sales
Posts: 4419
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Mike Sales » 29 Sep 2016, 7:35pm

Dave W wrote:Maybe this?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... tudy-finds


That's kind of cocked things up a bit don't you think?


Six pages of discussion already under the heading "New Study on Helmet Effectiveness, in, surprisingly, the Helmet Section!

Dave W
Posts: 1483
Joined: 18 Jul 2012, 4:17pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Dave W » 29 Sep 2016, 7:47pm

Yes, just found it. No surprises there either. I think most of the cycling public will quickly absorb that information rather than the long winded stuff in the other post.
It featured on the GCN cycling video on youtube.

Steady rider
Posts: 2187
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Steady rider » 29 Sep 2016, 7:48pm

http://crag.asn.au/helmet-fanatics-misl ... e-inquiry/

The reduction in cycling was disputed by Jake Olivier and others who presented evidence to the Australian Senate, however it was reported;

1.2 During the course of the hearing, and based on available data, it became clear MHL have undermined cycling participation rates. Attempts to argue to the contrary, especially given evidence from around the world, were not at all persuasive.


Members of the Senate did not believe him.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4419
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Mike Sales » 29 Sep 2016, 7:53pm

Dave W wrote:Yes, just found it. No surprises there either. I think most of the cycling public will quickly absorb that information rather than the long winded stuff in the other post.
It featured on the GCN cycling video on youtube.


Wow, you are a quick reader. Have you looked at the comments on the Guardian site too?

Dave W
Posts: 1483
Joined: 18 Jul 2012, 4:17pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Dave W » 29 Sep 2016, 7:59pm

No, not yet.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4419
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Mike Sales » 29 Sep 2016, 8:07pm

Dave W wrote:No, not yet.


So there may yet be surprises?

Dave W
Posts: 1483
Joined: 18 Jul 2012, 4:17pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Dave W » 29 Sep 2016, 8:16pm

No, not yet.


Have now, but it's the same boring rubbish about compulsory helmet wearing which doesn't interest me either way.
The only bit that interests me is the protection/no protection arguments.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4419
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Mike Sales » 29 Sep 2016, 8:26pm

Wow, quick reading.
I think if you read more carefully you would find very little specifically about compulsion.
It strikes me that you misunderstand the mentions of the laws in Oz and NZ.
The point is that these laws produced a huge step change in the proportion of helmet wearing cyclists, but the effect on head injury rates is not favourable. The rates of injury got worse.
I can see why you want to dismiss this, it rather demolishes the idea that helmets work, but you have no explanation.

Your certainty that there is nothing new which could make you think again seems to show a closed mind.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10140
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Cunobelin » 29 Sep 2016, 8:42pm

Dave W wrote:No, not yet.


Have now, but it's the same boring rubbish about compulsory helmet wearing which doesn't interest me either way.
The only bit that interests me is the protection/no protection arguments.



Why does that remind me of someone in denial of reality?

Dave W
Posts: 1483
Joined: 18 Jul 2012, 4:17pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Dave W » 29 Sep 2016, 8:45pm

:twisted: Because the paragraph ýou have written has been used so many times in the helmet section it's like a stuck record. I'm not interested.
You guys are the ones with the closed minds.

Someone new puts up a statement that actually helmets do save lives, impossible can't be so can it?
Last edited by Dave W on 29 Sep 2016, 8:49pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4419
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Mike Sales » 29 Sep 2016, 8:47pm

Fair enough. You have no interest in evidence or reason. Just don't expect to convince anybody else.

broadway
Posts: 777
Joined: 9 Mar 2010, 1:49pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: The helmet section?

Postby broadway » 29 Sep 2016, 9:34pm

Dave W wrote::twisted: Because the paragraph ýou have written has been used so many times in the helmet section it's like a stuck record. I'm not interested.
You guys are the ones with the closed minds.

Someone new puts up a statement that actually helmets do save lives, impossible can't be so can it?

For someone who isn't interested you seem to have a lot to say on the subject.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4419
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: The helmet section?

Postby Mike Sales » 29 Sep 2016, 9:48pm

Dave W wrote:
Someone new puts up a statement that actually helmets do save lives, impossible can't be so can it?


Olivier is not someone new. He has form. He is a known partisan in a university which has previous for biased work. His study includes work by the notorious Rivara and Thompson which is discredited.
You would know this if you had read the discussions here and on the Guardian.

I prefer the work of Goldacre and Spiegelhalter. You have read the quotation from their BMJ article, haven't you? It has been mentioned often enough.