Helmets for cricketers, footballers, motorists, not cyclists

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
Post Reply
Mike Sales
Posts: 7860
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Helmets for cricketers instead of cyclists

Post by Mike Sales »

50sbiker wrote:.Or be less careful because I wear a helmet...If i fall and hit the curb I am probably dead either way..It might just save my life...Wearing a seat belt in a car does not make me drive any less safe in the manner in which I drive.."chicks dig scars"".thank you for the humour..I am 57 tho!..Chicks most certainly do not "dig"brain damage.If one is involved in a collision resulting in later brain damage,you willbe dead without a helmet.So...Do you die instantly or take a slight risk of dementia having lived perfectly happy for an extra 10 years?!


I am interested in your analysis of your mental processes.
I am guessing that you might agree that when you perceive an increase in danger you take extra care?
But you see this as a one way ratchet. When you feel safer you do not relax a little?

Unfortunately many people do not work like this. When seat belts were made obligatory the KSI figures for more vulnerable road users went up.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Stevek76
Posts: 2084
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Helmets for cricketers, footballers, not cyclists

Post by Stevek76 »

The point of risk compensation is it's subconscious, people don't deliberately ride less safely with a helmet on or drive less safely with a seatbelt on, they just inevitably tend to. With seatbelts, the safety provided to the user generally outweighed the riskier driving (most stats aren't quite as rosy for vulnerable road users outside of the car mind). With cycle helmets the evidence is far fuzzier, for whatever reason the safety gains shown in the event of a crash do not translate into population level stats. That could partly be risk compensation, but it could also be partly that people who wear them are more likely to be roadies/mtbers already engaging in riskier behaviour.

But there is the far more salient point about actual risk levels. Regular, non sportsing, cycling is not a risky endeavour. GB transport stats indicate you are more likely to be killed walking somewhere than cycling there, particularly in urban areas, and the vast majority would look at someone as if they'd gone a bit mad if they started suggesting pedestrian helmets.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
mattsccm
Posts: 5095
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: Helmets for cricketers, footballers, not cyclists

Post by mattsccm »

I object strongly to the second post. No one should be told that they must attend to their own safety. That is for the individual to decide.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Helmets for cricketers instead of cyclists

Post by Jdsk »

Mike Sales wrote:When seat belts were made obligatory the KSI figures for more vulnerable road users went up.

This is highly contentious. I don't think that it's appropriate to quote it as established fact without sources.

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Helmets for cricketers, footballers, not cyclists

Post by Jdsk »

mattsccm wrote:I object strongly to the second post.

Which is that, please?

Thanks

Jonathan
Mike Sales
Posts: 7860
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Helmets for cricketers instead of cyclists

Post by Mike Sales »

Jdsk wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:When seat belts were made obligatory the KSI figures for more vulnerable road users went up.

This is highly contentious. I don't think that it's appropriate to quote it as established fact without sources.

Jonathan


I have quoted the source previously. As I am untutored in statistics I have to rely on experts. If my memory serves, the evidence I referred to is from a paper from the journal of the Staistical Society, Significance, written by members of the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Traffic Safety. They are belt proponents.
I think that you are probably aware of this, but if you insist I will drag it out again. Thanks.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Helmets for cricketers, footballers, not cyclists

Post by Jdsk »

My attempt to pin down the sources in July:
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=139290&p=1508799&hilit=significance+royal+statistical#p1508799

I'm happy to try again if anyone will state to what they're referring.

Jonathan
Mike Sales
Posts: 7860
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Helmets for cricketers, footballers, not cyclists

Post by Mike Sales »

Jdsk wrote:My attempt to pin down the sources in July:
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=139290&p=1508799&hilit=significance+royal+statistical#p1508799

I'm happy to try again if anyone will state to what they're referring.

Jonathan


Adams quotes a conclusion from their paper.

They say “the clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants is appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists.”

.


Are you suggesting these seat belt backers are wrong?

Adams also reproduces a table which seems to me to bear out their conclusion.

I doubt that he made it up.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Helmets for cricketers, footballers, not cyclists

Post by Jdsk »

Mike Sales wrote:When seat belts were made obligatory the KSI figures for more vulnerable road users went up.

It's a pretty easy claim to examine, but it's always best to go to the primary source. What is that, please?

Thanks

Jonathan
Stevek76
Posts: 2084
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Helmets for cricketers, footballers, not cyclists

Post by Stevek76 »

Adams has a copy of the significance article from Allsop et al on his site:

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/ ... ltlaws.pdf

As for the data itself, will have been from stats 19 presumably, but the I'm not sure how readily available it is pre 200x.

Really it needs some kind of proper time series analysis done given the overall downwards trend plus the large number of confounding issues.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Helmets for cricketers, footballers, not cyclists

Post by Jdsk »

Stevek76 wrote:Really it needs some kind of proper time series analysis done given the overall downwards trend plus the large number of confounding issues.

Yes.

And a systematic review to discover what happened in every case and avoid selection bias.

Jonathan
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5457
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Helmets for cricketers, footballers, not cyclists

Post by pjclinch »

"There is evidence, albeit not conclusive, that vulnerable road casualties increased in the wake of increased seatbelt uptake" is probably better than "oh, you can't say that, we're not sure".

I think that's suitably qualified, and goes for much of the evidence about all sorts of Gospel Road Safety claims. As I often point out, the evidence is all over the places so we're in a general state of "not proven".

Systematic reviews are all very well but assume you've got a body of literature to systematically review. Seems that if you can find hardly anything at all that's not really the case! If there's not much at all that pushes you back to the "There is evidence, albeit not conclusive". Part of the problem here is that the seatbelt cat is long out of the bag and where you have data it is old and its collection not necessarily informed by more up to date understanding of risk: we see it as much more slippery now than we did back when we were looking at seatbelt legislation. It's something to bear in mind for data collection in future though.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
mikeymo
Posts: 2299
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Helmets for cricketers, footballers, not cyclists

Post by mikeymo »

pjclinch wrote:"There is evidence, albeit not conclusive, that vulnerable road casualties increased in the wake of increased seatbelt uptake" is probably better than "oh, you can't say that, we're not sure".

I think that's suitably qualified, and goes for much of the evidence about all sorts of Gospel Road Safety claims. As I often point out, the evidence is all over the places so we're in a general state of "not proven".

Systematic reviews are all very well but assume you've got a body of literature to systematically review. Seems that if you can find hardly anything at all that's not really the case! If there's not much at all that pushes you back to the "There is evidence, albeit not conclusive". Part of the problem here is that the seatbelt cat is long out of the bag and where you have data it is old and its collection not necessarily informed by more up to date understanding of risk: we see it as much more slippery now than we did back when we were looking at seatbelt legislation. It's something to bear in mind for data collection in future though.

Pete.


Other things that have happened in car use and construction, along with seat belts, are ABS brakes, airbags, heated windscreens, heated rear windscreens, heated mirrors, electric windows, electric sunroofs, air-con, climate control, electric seats, airbags, double-glazed windows (MB S class), cruise control, lane warnings, adaptive cruise control, sat nav, ICE, heated seats, massaging seats - apparently, in the back of some Lexuses (I'll leave that as a puzzle for our local Latin scholar to solve). And so on.

Over the summer I twice ended up hiring cars far more luxurious than the one I actually own. A Lexus on one occasion, and a Discovery. They were both nice, the Lexus especially. I was amazed at how luxurious driving it felt. There was a general feeling of being insulated from the world outside the car. Some of the driver enhancements I think actually enhance safety. I was certainly less tired and more alert at the end of a 400 mile journey than I would have been in any car I've owned. And the various detectors around the vehicle did indeed warn me when, in central London, people were walking very close to the car. I didn't really want to try to drive in to the car in front, just to test whether the automatic braking worked, but I'll assume it would have.

The uptake of seat belts, and the legislation mandating their use (which are two different things, a point seemingly lost on those who endlessly trot out Australian studies on helmet usage) may have some influence on driver behaviour. But I would say it is the far more general increase in the amount of car comfort and safety features that has led to a "distancing" of some drivers from other road users.
Cyril Haearn
Posts: 15215
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Helmets for cricketers, footballers, not cyclists

Post by Cyril Haearn »

Just shows how stupid most drivers are, that wearing seatbleats was made compulsory, plenty do not wear them even now, or belt up while moving
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
Mike Sales
Posts: 7860
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Helmets for cricketers, footballers, not cyclists

Post by Mike Sales »

mikeymo wrote:The uptake of seat belts, and the legislation mandating their use (which are two different things, a point seemingly lost on those who endlessly trot out Australian studies on helmet usage) may have some influence on driver behaviour. But I would say it is the far more general increase in the amount of car comfort and safety features that has led to a "distancing" of some drivers from other road users.



You have utterly missed the point about Australian helmet studies, and those in NZ.
The passing of the law led to a very large step change in helmet wearing, from less than a third to nearly 100%. The improvement in cycling casualties figures should therefore be very easily detected.
That there is no noticeable change is significant.
Unless your point is that helmets unwillingly worn don't work properly!
Belts are not the only safety feature on modern cars. Air bags, safety stiffening etc. make accidents more survivable.
Paramedic rescue, and improved medical treatment have also reduced road deaths, as has the reduction in cycling.
You should also read up on Smeed's Law.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Post Reply