Warning anecdotal helmet comment!

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.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 16796
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Warning anecdotal helmet comment!

Postby [XAP]Bob » 28 Sep 2018, 10:03am

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:HI,
Well would you rather be wearing a helmet or not When your head hits the tarmac?

Can you in all certainty say that the next time you fall off your head will not hit the ground?

Some statistics if you can.
We will never know till we fall off will we.


I'd rather not hit my head whilst not wearing one than to hit it whilst wearing one - which is rather the point of this comment thread.

A larger, heavier, object on my neck is more likely to get to the ground than my bare head would be...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Ron
Posts: 1167
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 9:07pm

Re: Warning anecdotal helmet comment!

Postby Ron » 28 Sep 2018, 11:00am

NATURAL ANKLING wrote: When your head hits the tarmac...... the next time you fall off

You make it sound as if falling on your head is an inevitable part of being a cyclist :( .

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 9733
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Warning anecdotal helmet comment!

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 28 Sep 2018, 11:09am

Hi,
I agree with that [XAP]Bob, on a scientific basis of mass.
But that assumes that every head hitting ground is low impact enough not to do serious damage, that is no certainty.

If your head hits the ground whilst no head protection (ok so helmets offer little) can you say that no damage will occur.
Your counter will be without helmet odds are 1:500 (est, eg) compared with helmet wearer.

But we still cannot pick our individual scenario of fall / collision.

The evidence posted link back post on stats says "evidence mixed".
A more exhaustive testing of wearers vbs non is needed I.M.O.

And at the end it will be odds falling/collision.....head impact........hard enough to cause serious harm.....1:5,000,000.
But any even perceived safety feature is there for that one case, in law it would be mandatory save prosecution.

I would put my chance of serious harm to my head at same odds as my big win lotto :)
Pays your money................
Priority Is Still 500K In 24..Just Dreaming...Stay Focused Guys And Keep Sharp...
You'll Find Me At The Top Of a Hill...............Somewhere...After Dark..

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 9733
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Warning anecdotal helmet comment!

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 28 Sep 2018, 11:15am

Hi,
on a side note-

Once in industry someone dropped a metal box on my head...............blood down my neck, I still have a groove in my scalp I can feel.

At home I am constantly banging my head on garage door as I leave it low so water does not get in when raining, even bang my head on inside of camper many times plus the rest of occasions ducking and diving elsewhere.
Walking into door :lol:

But on a bike even motor no such incidents except last year wrecking helmet.
there you go.
Priority Is Still 500K In 24..Just Dreaming...Stay Focused Guys And Keep Sharp...
You'll Find Me At The Top Of a Hill...............Somewhere...After Dark..

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 16796
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Warning anecdotal helmet comment!

Postby [XAP]Bob » 28 Sep 2018, 12:07pm

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
I agree with that [XAP]Bob, on a scientific basis of mass.
But that assumes that every head hitting ground is low impact enough not to do serious damage, that is no certainty.

If your head hits the ground whilst no head protection (ok so helmets offer little) can you say that no damage will occur.
Your counter will be without helmet odds are 1:500 (est, eg) compared with helmet wearer.

But we still cannot pick our individual scenario of fall / collision.

The evidence posted link back post on stats says "evidence mixed".
A more exhaustive testing of wearers vbs non is needed I.M.O.

And at the end it will be odds falling/collision.....head impact........hard enough to cause serious harm.....1:5,000,000.
But any even perceived safety feature is there for that one case, in law it would be mandatory save prosecution.

I would put my chance of serious harm to my head at same odds as my big win lotto :)
Pays your money................



We can't pick our offs - but we can look at how many people actually have them, and whether or not a few ounces of polystyrene makes any difference *on average*.
And on average we can pretty confidently say that a helmet makes somewhere between a negligible positive and a negligible negative net contribution to outcomes - that's certainly not enough of a benefit to consider promoting them in any way shape or form.
NOTE - at no point do I deny that there may be cases where they would provide a positive delta to the outcome of an impact. But there are two counter points - one is that impacts seem to be slightly more likely for various reasons, the other is that that delta certainly won't be 'dead -> walked away from' which is what people seem to expect.

The number of times I've come off a bike is non zero, but also not extremely high.
The number of times I've hit my head when dong so is, I think, zero.

Even in the case where I was shunted pretty hard - I tucked, rolled and my head had no evidence of any impact at all.

Compare that with when I did used to wear a helmet when it would always be scuffed - because I'd forever hit it on the grave door/walls etc. It's not just the mass (because they are fairly lightweight - although in a serious collision they still need accelerating) - it's the additional size that concerns me more.

As well as the fact that they are generally uncomfortable, get in the way of glasses, hearing aids, hats etc....
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

User avatar
100%JR
Posts: 658
Joined: 31 May 2016, 10:47pm
Location: High Green,Sheffield.

Re: Warning anecdotal helmet comment!

Postby 100%JR » 28 Sep 2018, 12:19pm

The utility cyclist wrote:We have lots of certainties against wearing, there are no certainties in a positive sense to wearing helmets.
Based on logic, probability, known outcomes and how by wearing it has massively changed the onus of safety and from that had a massive detrimental effect not just on cycling itself but health and well being as a whole, to choose to wear a helmet is really ignorant of the certainties and illogically contributes to putting yourself at greater risk of harm. That IS a certainty!

I think you forgot to say In your opinion.... :wink:

I couldn't agree more with everything you say.(this isn't strictly true but the rest of my post was deleted :wink: )
Last edited by 100%JR on 28 Sep 2018, 12:49pm, edited 1 time in total.

brynpoeth
Posts: 9015
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: Warning anecdotal helmet comment!

Postby brynpoeth » 28 Sep 2018, 12:42pm

I saw an invisible (or transparent) h****t somewhere, could that be the solution?
(Might have dreamed it :wink:)

Plus One for opinions
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love the three Es: enforcement, enforcement & enforcement

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 354
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: Warning anecdotal helmet comment!

Postby Wanlock Dod » 28 Sep 2018, 12:45pm

The utility cyclist wrote:We have lots of certainties against wearing, there are no certainties in a positive sense to wearing helmets.
Based on logic, probability, known outcomes and how by wearing it has massively changed the onus of safety and from that had a massive detrimental effect not just on cycling itself but health and well being as a whole, to choose to wear a helmet is really ignorant of the certainties and illogically contributes to putting yourself at greater risk of harm. That IS a certainty!

It is perhaps worth considering that if the placebo effect is sufficient for some people to feel safe enough to cycle when wearing a helmet (but not otherwise) then this is arguably a good thing because more cyclists really does lead to better safety for cyclists

Jon Lucas
Posts: 228
Joined: 6 Mar 2009, 6:02pm

Re: Warning anecdotal helmet comment!

Postby Jon Lucas » 28 Sep 2018, 12:58pm

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
on a side note-

Once in industry someone dropped a metal box on my head...............blood down my neck, I still have a groove in my scalp I can feel.

At home I am constantly banging my head on garage door as I leave it low so water does not get in when raining, even bang my head on inside of camper many times plus the rest of occasions ducking and diving elsewhere.
Walking into door :lol:

But on a bike even motor no such incidents except last year wrecking helmet.
there you go.


Do you wear a helmet when opening your garage door or in your camper?

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 1978
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: Warning anecdotal helmet comment!

Postby The utility cyclist » 28 Sep 2018, 2:12pm

ibbo68 wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:We have lots of certainties against wearing, there are no certainties in a positive sense to wearing helmets.
Based on logic, probability, known outcomes and how by wearing it has massively changed the onus of safety and from that had a massive detrimental effect not just on cycling itself but health and well being as a whole, to choose to wear a helmet is really ignorant of the certainties and illogically contributes to putting yourself at greater risk of harm. That IS a certainty!

I think you forgot to say In your opinion.... :wink:

I couldn't agree more with everything you say.(this isn't strictly true but the rest of my post was deleted :wink: )

What I said isn't opinion, it is fact.
Fact, people including children take greater risks when adorned with a safety aid, this is incontrovertible despite so called plastic hat experts denying this (back to the denialist thread!), it is a human psychology issue and tested time and time and time again and found to be so, not just for adornments worn on the head. Thus from that the probability of an incident occurring is increased, this is again a certainty not opinion.

Fact, a helmet increases your head size, also fact is that by definition of that size increase it will increase the probability of you striking your head compared to not wearing in any given scenario. again, not opinion.
Fact, headgear in boxing has not decreased TBIs, in fact it has increased TBIs significantly.

Fact, concussions/TBIs in American Football/gridiron increased massively with the onset of the Naismith helmet, far from actually protecting participants, he and others have actually increased the injuries 9of all types) and TBIs over the years to such a point that there are hundreds of thousands of former players suffering with the long term effects of multiple traumatic brain injury and other injuries caused by the reckless and unadulterated play style. Fact, this level of TBI is not seen in rugby, the injury level of gridiron is not seen in rugby, why? Because headgear was not worn, the rules of the game were changed, spear tackling/leading with the head or shoulder to the head was nowhere near as common place, why, because players did not feel protected by a helmet/headgear to be as reckless, again this is uncontrvertible fact not opinion.

Even now the rulers in gridiron will not remove helmet to helmet contact when a player is deemed to be a 'runner' though they have outlawed head contact when a player is deemed to be defenceless. Rugy has evolved far quicker in terms of looking at preventing even just arm swing tackles never mind directly striking an opponent at full speed with your head, shoulder charging/barging was outlawed simply because there was a high chance of direct head contact and also the whiplash effect. Again, this changes the environment instead of trying to 'armour' up.

Fact, those who road race at the top level are at least twice as likely to suffer a traumatic injury comparative to those in the 1980s/early 90s, this was a study undertaken only a few years ago which took data from professional riders of two eras. the helmet wearing era were over twice the level for suffering traumatic injuries as the non helmet wearing era. We already know that despite better on course H&S, more marshals, barriers on courses, better grippier tyres, better brakes and helmets, more riders die in the pro road racing ranks post helmet rules than pre. Again, this is fact not opinion.

As i said, there are certainties and not opinion that say helmets are not helping but hindering and exposing the wearer to greater risk, that doesn't even take into account the other variables that ad up to a much worse situation for all of us.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 1978
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: Warning anecdotal helmet comment!

Postby The utility cyclist » 28 Sep 2018, 2:17pm

Wanlock Dod wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:We have lots of certainties against wearing, there are no certainties in a positive sense to wearing helmets.
Based on logic, probability, known outcomes and how by wearing it has massively changed the onus of safety and from that had a massive detrimental effect not just on cycling itself but health and well being as a whole, to choose to wear a helmet is really ignorant of the certainties and illogically contributes to putting yourself at greater risk of harm. That IS a certainty!

It is perhaps worth considering that if the placebo effect is sufficient for some people to feel safe enough to cycle when wearing a helmet (but not otherwise) then this is arguably a good thing because more cyclists really does lead to better safety for cyclists

Well no, because despite that mantra it's not really as true as you think. Look at the UK stats, we have fewer people riding now than we did 10-15 years ago, however the same individuals are actually riding further so the actual miles covered is the same, the last few years we've seen a few ups and downs but no significant rise. However with the last rise in miles cycled, we've seen more KSIs. helmet wearing increases are still not increasing numbers of people cycling and they certainly are not having any effect in terms of the safety in numbers statement. Even in NL cuycling numbers have remained static, there are even increases in helmet wearing there (and Denmark), and what has happened in the last few years, injuries and deaths have gone back up.
Even if you think that the helmet is a placebo for some people enough to get them to feel safe enough to cycle, this isn't enough to put a dent in the actual numbers cycling nor indeed to reduce injury figures.

User avatar
100%JR
Posts: 658
Joined: 31 May 2016, 10:47pm
Location: High Green,Sheffield.

Re: Warning anecdotal helmet comment!

Postby 100%JR » 28 Sep 2018, 6:46pm

The utility cyclist wrote:
ibbo68 wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:We have lots of certainties against wearing, there are no certainties in a positive sense to wearing helmets.
Based on logic, probability, known outcomes and how by wearing it has massively changed the onus of safety and from that had a massive detrimental effect not just on cycling itself but health and well being as a whole, to choose to wear a helmet is really ignorant of the certainties and illogically contributes to putting yourself at greater risk of harm. That IS a certainty!

I think you forgot to say In your opinion.... :wink:

I couldn't agree more with everything you say.(this isn't strictly true but the rest of my post was deleted :wink: )

What I said isn't opinion, it is fact.
Fact, people including children take greater risks when adorned with a safety aid, this is incontrovertible despite so called plastic hat experts denying this (back to the denialist thread!), it is a human psychology issue and tested time and time and time again and found to be so, not just for adornments worn on the head. Thus from that the probability of an incident occurring is increased, this is again a certainty not opinion.

Fact, a helmet increases your head size, also fact is that by definition of that size increase it will increase the probability of you striking your head compared to not wearing in any given scenario. again, not opinion.
Fact, headgear in boxing has not decreased TBIs, in fact it has increased TBIs significantly.

Fact, concussions/TBIs in American Football/gridiron increased massively with the onset of the Naismith helmet, far from actually protecting participants, he and others have actually increased the injuries 9of all types) and TBIs over the years to such a point that there are hundreds of thousands of former players suffering with the long term effects of multiple traumatic brain injury and other injuries caused by the reckless and unadulterated play style. Fact, this level of TBI is not seen in rugby, the injury level of gridiron is not seen in rugby, why? Because headgear was not worn, the rules of the game were changed, spear tackling/leading with the head or shoulder to the head was nowhere near as common place, why, because players did not feel protected by a helmet/headgear to be as reckless, again this is uncontrvertible fact not opinion.

Even now the rulers in gridiron will not remove helmet to helmet contact when a player is deemed to be a 'runner' though they have outlawed head contact when a player is deemed to be defenceless. Rugy has evolved far quicker in terms of looking at preventing even just arm swing tackles never mind directly striking an opponent at full speed with your head, shoulder charging/barging was outlawed simply because there was a high chance of direct head contact and also the whiplash effect. Again, this changes the environment instead of trying to 'armour' up.

Fact, those who road race at the top level are at least twice as likely to suffer a traumatic injury comparative to those in the 1980s/early 90s, this was a study undertaken only a few years ago which took data from professional riders of two eras. the helmet wearing era were over twice the level for suffering traumatic injuries as the non helmet wearing era. We already know that despite better on course H&S, more marshals, barriers on courses, better grippier tyres, better brakes and helmets, more riders die in the pro road racing ranks post helmet rules than pre. Again, this is fact not opinion.

As i said, there are certainties and not opinion that say helmets are not helping but hindering and exposing the wearer to greater risk, that doesn't even take into account the other variables that ad up to a much worse situation for all of us.

Again in your opinion.
I would like to add to that comment but unfortunately the Moderators will again edit my post.
Stop cherry picking "facts" to back up your opion.I too could do that to back up my opinion that wearing helmets saves lives.For every "fact" you list I could find a counter "fact" dismissing it.This could then go on and on.
We all get that you are anti-helmet as you like to tell everyone as often as you can get it into to any topic.As anti you are I am pro.The difference is I don't try to insinuate than non users are somehow less intelligent or less informed than me.
Last edited by 100%JR on 29 Sep 2018, 12:51pm, edited 1 time in total.

irc
Posts: 4412
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Warning anecdotal helmet comment!

Postby irc » 28 Sep 2018, 7:09pm

Wanlock Dod wrote:It is perhaps worth considering that if the placebo effect is sufficient for some people to feel safe enough to cycle when wearing a helmet (but not otherwise) then this is arguably a good thing because more cyclists really does lead to better safety for cyclists


Or arguably a bad thing if helmet wearing leads to cyclists choosing roads with heavier traffic because they feel safer.

Just today my wife visited a friend and learned and learned her friends brother had died following a fall on a stone staircase. No call for helmets.

The same friend had a son murdered not long ago. Some people get less than their share of luck.

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 354
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: Warning anecdotal helmet comment!

Postby Wanlock Dod » 28 Sep 2018, 9:51pm

The utility cyclist wrote:Even if you think that the helmet is a placebo for some people enough to get them to feel safe enough to cycle, this isn't enough to put a dent in the actual numbers cycling nor indeed to reduce injury figures.

I would have to agree with that, and indeed I'm probably thinking of folk who have been conditioned through excessive helmet use to believe that they could not cycle safely in the UK without one (but it's not a problem when they go to the Netherlands). I certainly don't know any former non-cyclists who have been persuaded of the safety and convenience of cycling by the widespread availability of polystyrene headgear (perhaps they really know more than they are letting on?). As such I can only conclude that the helmets are a far more effective deterrent to cycling, and that the net effect on numbers of cyclists is likely to be both significant and negative.
However, I'm not sure that a situation where no increase in numbers of cyclists has not resulted in any observable improvement in safety would be sufficient to refute the assertion that more cyclists make cycling safer for everybody. Although I'll happily add the reservation that more might well mean quite a lot more rather than maybe just the odd one or two more.

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 1249
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Warning anecdotal helmet comment!

Postby Cugel » 29 Sep 2018, 3:33pm

brynpoeth wrote:I saw an invisible (or transparent) h****t somewhere, could that be the solution?
(Might have dreamed it :wink:)

Plus One for opinions


I have an invisible helmet but of course that's not the one you saw because .... it's invisible.

It's made of caution alloyed with anticipation and acute awareness. All these things are invisible except in terms of their effects, which has been to stop me getting involved in incidents where I might bang my head. It's good stuff, since I haven't - at least on a bike.

I forgot to put it on during a couple of fell walks and also at the ice rink, long ago. On the other hand, it would have taken an enormous amount of caution and acute-awareness to spot the naughty jelly-filled lichen that slid me AoverT; or the naughty girlfriend who sneaked up on me from behind at the rink to give me a firm push resulting in another variety of AoverT. You can only carry so much caution before it stops you moving.

I have some body armour made of the same stuff. It too has worked quite well although it's poor at dealing with gravel rash or pokes from the corner of an immovable machine tool in the shed.

Cugel