helmets from Why wear black?

[mikeymo]

Helmet compulsion isn’t the answer. It’s counter productive. If you tell people they must do something, it tends to bring the feet stamping ‘I don’t wanna, it’s not fair’ brigade out, and less people want to / tend to wear them. Just educate people about head injuries, and the consequences, and let them make their own minds up.

Which brings us nicely to.... the THUDGUARD

That looks like a good idea to me. But I infer that you are presenting it in an attempt to ridicule. Many health and safety devices and procedures were once presented as ridiculous. And are now accepted as having value.

https://www.hellomotherhood.com/article/214831-skull-development-in-infants/

[Mike Sales]

How do you like the motoring helmet from Australia?
For some reason, perhaps sales resistance, it did not catch on. Anyway, it never had the pervasive promotion cycle helmets get.

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/05/motoring-helmets-for-real-high-risk.html

The box reads:
"You have made a sound decision to purchase your Davies, Craig Motoring Helmet. Wear it and don’t feel self-conscious. Driving even for the most proficient is dangerous.

Ultimately, motoring helmets will be commonplace, but in the meantime, you will be a leader whilst those who may consider your good sense misplaced, will follow."

mikeymo wrote

Many health and safety devices and procedures were once presented as ridiculous. And are now accepted as having value.

This ad. is from the1980s, but so far this health and safety improvement has yet to gain any traction with the motoring public.

[Cunobelin]

The Australian law worked insofar as wearing went from about a third to nearly 100%. The foot stampers have contributed a large amount in fines to the government. It is, after all, easy to spot bareheaded cyclists, and not difficult to catch them.

Heavy helmet promotion seems to be counterproductive in that it puts people off cycling. Laws do the same. This is counterproductive in public health results.

The Australian Law is difficult to assess as there was a whole raft of legislative clampdowns the should have shown a decrease in cyclist injuries anyway.

The ironic thing was that head injury unequivocally dropped. Trouble was that so did the number of cyclists. The unfortunate reality was that when you link the two and correct the head injury statistics for the decrease in cyclists, the head injuries ROSE after compulsion

I'm sorry, maybe I'm being really stupid, but:

"head injury unequivocally dropped"

and

"the head injuries ROSE after compulsion"

Seem to be contradictory to me. Aren't "dropped" and "rose" opposite things?

The words that you have missed are "link and correct"

1. The overall number of head injuries dropped following the compulsion
2. There were then fewer cyclists... the number of head injuries "per cyclist" rose

It is that simple

Another way to explain|:

The reduction in cyclists was for argument 30 %, you would expect to see a 30% reduction in head injury
The reduction was only 20% in head injury, the remaining cyclists were suffering more head injuries

[Cunobelin]

Helmet compulsion isn’t the answer. It’s counter productive. If you tell people they must do something, it tends to bring the feet stamping ‘I don’t wanna, it’s not fair’ brigade out, and less people want to / tend to wear them. Just educate people about head injuries, and the consequences, and let them make their own minds up.

Which brings us nicely to.... the THUDGUARD

That looks like a good idea to me. But I infer that you are presenting it in an attempt to ridicule. Many health and safety devices and procedures were once presented as ridiculous. And are now accepted as having value.

https://www.hellomotherhood.com/article/214831-skull-development-in-infants/

Not at all... Your article deals with specific medical conditions, not general use. Like suggesting that cycle helmets should be used only in these conditions and have no contribution for the normal fit and able cyclist. It has no value in the general use of either cycle helmets or the Thudguard as they are promoted

The Thudguard is a simple echo for the helmet debate. The same people recommend them, there is the same emotional blackmail the same anecdote.al evidence, and the same lack of any real evidence of the effectiveness.

What it does is show the hypocrisy of many who insist that all this unequivocally validates cycle helmets, but doesn't validate the Thudguard

[BlueRider]

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


Imagine!

[Mike Sales]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds


Imagine!

This is laughable. If helmets reduced risk of serious head injury by 70 per cent the statistical evidence would be overwhelming and indisputable. Instead, the benefit is "too modest to capture".

[mikeymo]

Which brings us nicely to.... the THUDGUARD

That looks like a good idea to me. But I infer that you are presenting it in an attempt to ridicule. Many health and safety devices and procedures were once presented as ridiculous. And are now accepted as having value.

https://www.hellomotherhood.com/article/214831-skull-development-in-infants/

Not at all... Your article deals with specific medical conditions, not general use. Like suggesting that cycle helmets should be used only in these conditions and have no contribution for the normal fit and able cyclist. It has no value in the general use of either cycle helmets or the Thudguard as they are promoted

The Thudguard is a simple echo for the helmet debate. The same people recommend them, there is the same emotional blackmail the same anecdote.al evidence, and the same lack of any real evidence of the effectiveness.

What it does is show the hypocrisy of many who insist that all this unequivocally validates cycle helmets, but doesn't validate the Thudguard

Yes, my apologies. I was attempting, in something of a hurry, to find some reference to the fact that infants skulls are softer than adults, rather than referencing specific medical conditions. Perhaps try this instead:

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/03/health/vital-signs-protection-a-measure-of-an-infant-skull-s-strength.html

Though it's again grabbed quickly from an internet search. I'm not a pediatric specialist, so can't vouch for the soundness of the contents of the article. Perhaps you are?

It's interesting though that you posted a picture of a child with head protection, but no reference as to the context in which it is expected to be used. A quick search finds that Thudguard's site is down, so difficult to say what they themselves say about it.

It is always revealing when people use terms like "emotional blackmail" and "hypocrisy" in these sort of discussions. The prejudice and emotional drive that that sort of language discloses does not, of course, mean that the person's statements are incorrect. But it does perhaps let us know that the "evidence" which is chosen to support the point of view is not chosen entirely without bias.

[mikeymo]

Excellent. Given that 60% are alcohol-related, do you wear one in the pub?

Easy, this one. No, I don't wear a helmet to a pub. On the rare occasions that I visit a pub, it's usually to eat. Over the past 4 years (since my records began) my average weekly consumption of alcohol has been 0.76 units per week. Which as one doctor said, when the system wouldn't accept that, "let's call it zero".

Though it's an interesting comparison you make. Comparisons are all the rage here, aren't they? Valid or not.

Cycling is generally accepted as good for health. Cardiovascular system improved, risk of stroke, heart attack, type 2 diabetes reduced, etc. etc. Also air quality maybe a bit better for the wider population (if cycling instead of car driving). But slight risk of accident. Which a helmet may or may not ameliorate.

Whereas alcohol is always bad for health, even, it seems, at low levels, and very definitely at the levels at which the risk of head bumps occur. So helmets for piss-heads? If people want to drink themselves into incapability, with the consequent risks, then maybe it's best that Darwin applies.

[mikeymo]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds


Imagine!

This is laughable. If helmets reduced risk of serious head injury by 70 per cent the statistical evidence would be overwhelming and indisputable. Instead, the benefit is "too modest to capture".

I've read the Grauniad article, and can't find the phrase "too modest to capture". Where did that come from?

[Mike Sales]

I've read the Grauniad article, and can't find the phrase "too modest to capture". Where did that come from?

It is from a British Medical Journal editorial by Ben Goldacre, Wellcome research fellow in epidemiology and David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the public understanding of risk.
Goldacre links to it from his blog post, Bicycle Helmets and the law: a perfect teaching case for epidemiology.

I have quoted it before, but since you are clearly not paying attention, I will quote some more.

The linked paper by Dennis and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.f2674) investigates the policy question and concludes that the effect of Canadian helmet legislation on hospital admission for cycling head injuries “seems to have been minimal.” Other ecological studies have come to different conclusions, but the current study has somewhat superior methodology—controlling for background trends and modelling head injuries as a proportion of all cycling injuries.
This finding of “no benefit” is superficially hard to reconcile with case-control studies, many of which have shown that people wearing helmets are less likely to have a head injury. Such findings suggest that, for individuals, helmets confer a benefit. These studies, however, are vulnerable to many methodological shortcomings. If the controls are cyclists presenting with other injuries in the emergency department, then analyses are conditional on having an accident and therefore assume that wearing a helmet does not change the overall accident risk. There are also confounding variables that are generally unmeasured and perhaps even unmeasurable. People who choose to wear bicycle helmets will probably be different from those who ride without a helmet: they may be more cautious, for example, and so less likely to have a serious head injury, regardless of their helmets.
People who are forced by legislation to wear a bicycle helmet, meanwhile, may be different again. Firstly, they may not wear the helmet correctly, seeking only to comply with the law and avoid a fine. Secondly, their behaviour may change as a consequence of wearing a helmet through “risk compensation,” a phenomenon that has been documented in many fields.One study—albeit with a single author and subject—suggests that drivers give larger clearance to cyclists without a helmet.

In any case, the current uncertainty about any benefit from helmet wearing or promotion is unlikely to be substantially reduced by further research. Equally, we can be certain that helmets will continue to be debated, and at length. The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.

The studies you refer to are case controlled studies, the problems with which G & S discuss above.

https://www.badscience.net/2013/12/bicycle-helmets-and-the-law-a-perfect-teaching-case-for-epidemiology/

[Cunobelin]

That looks like a good idea to me. But I infer that you are presenting it in an attempt to ridicule. Many health and safety devices and procedures were once presented as ridiculous. And are now accepted as having value.

https://www.hellomotherhood.com/article/214831-skull-development-in-infants/

Not at all... Your article deals with specific medical conditions, not general use. Like suggesting that cycle helmets should be used only in these conditions and have no contribution for the normal fit and able cyclist. It has no value in the general use of either cycle helmets or the Thudguard as they are promoted

The Thudguard is a simple echo for the helmet debate. The same people recommend them, there is the same emotional blackmail the same anecdote.al evidence, and the same lack of any real evidence of the effectiveness.

What it does is show the hypocrisy of many who insist that all this unequivocally validates cycle helmets, but doesn't validate the Thudguard

Yes, my apologies. I was attempting, in something of a hurry, to find some reference to the fact that infants skulls are softer than adults, rather than referencing specific medical conditions. Perhaps try this instead:

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/03/health/vital-signs-protection-a-measure-of-an-infant-skull-s-strength.html

Though it's again grabbed quickly from an internet search. I'm not a pediatric specialist, so can't vouch for the soundness of the contents of the article. Perhaps you are?

It's interesting though that you posted a picture of a child with head protection, but no reference as to the context in which it is expected to be used. A quick search finds that Thudguard's site is down, so difficult to say what they themselves say about it.

It is always revealing when people use terms like "emotional blackmail" and "hypocrisy" in these sort of discussions. The prejudice and emotional drive that that sort of language discloses does not, of course, mean that the person's statements are incorrect. But it does perhaps let us know that the "evidence" which is chosen to support the point of view is not chosen entirely without bias.

Emotional blackmail is a staple of these debates. Every time you get the "think of the children" "you will be a vegetable" etc it is exactly that ... emotional blackmail

Also, it is a genuine hypocrisy.

The website is down, so I can't link, but there is a frequent argument that we should wear cycle helmets because safety organisations like RoSPA recommend, and there is the support of medical professionals.

Yet when RoSPA states that the Thudguard makes a similar contribution as cycle helmets and the same medical exerts support both Thudguard and cycle helmets, it is OK to ignore this advice and make up your own mind in the case of the THudguard, but unequivocal proof of the necessity of a cycle helmet

[mikeymo]

Not at all... Your article deals with specific medical conditions, not general use. Like suggesting that cycle helmets should be used only in these conditions and have no contribution for the normal fit and able cyclist. It has no value in the general use of either cycle helmets or the Thudguard as they are promoted

The Thudguard is a simple echo for the helmet debate. The same people recommend them, there is the same emotional blackmail the same anecdote.al evidence, and the same lack of any real evidence of the effectiveness.

What it does is show the hypocrisy of many who insist that all this unequivocally validates cycle helmets, but doesn't validate the Thudguard

Yes, my apologies. I was attempting, in something of a hurry, to find some reference to the fact that infants skulls are softer than adults, rather than referencing specific medical conditions. Perhaps try this instead:

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/03/health/vital-signs-protection-a-measure-of-an-infant-skull-s-strength.html

Though it's again grabbed quickly from an internet search. I'm not a pediatric specialist, so can't vouch for the soundness of the contents of the article. Perhaps you are?

It's interesting though that you posted a picture of a child with head protection, but no reference as to the context in which it is expected to be used. A quick search finds that Thudguard's site is down, so difficult to say what they themselves say about it.

It is always revealing when people use terms like "emotional blackmail" and "hypocrisy" in these sort of discussions. The prejudice and emotional drive that that sort of language discloses does not, of course, mean that the person's statements are incorrect. But it does perhaps let us know that the "evidence" which is chosen to support the point of view is not chosen entirely without bias.

Emotional blackmail is a staple of these debates. Every time you get the "think of the children" "you will be a vegetable" etc it is exactly that ... emotional blackmail

Also, it is a genuine hypocrisy.

The website is down, so I can't link, but there is a frequent argument that we should wear cycle helmets because safety organisations like RoSPA recommend, and there is the support of medical professionals.

Yet when RoSPA states that the Thudguard makes a similar contribution as cycle helmets and the same medical exerts support both Thudguard and cycle helmets, it is OK to ignore this advice and make up your own mind in the case of the THudguard, but unequivocal proof of the necessity of a cycle helmet

Here, let me help you with the English language:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

Your use of extravagant language tells us all we need to know about your motives. Though of course you might be right, however emotional your motives.

[mikeymo]

Excellent. Given that 60% are alcohol-related, do you wear one in the pub?

Clearly you are determined to "prove" your point. Your many posts on this subject and your use of somewhat flowery irrational language demonstrate your personal commitment to maintaining your stance. Your posture, I think, is driven by your personality, your need to be "right" and you feeling that your "position" and therefore your personality, is under attack.

Suggestion. Stop. Imagine you are somebody else. Read. And try to understand. I would say the probability of your doing that is only slightly higher than zero, but I'll suggest it anyway.

You seem not to understand the nature of risks. Or actually basic addition.

Here goes:

1. Jo believes that wearing a helmet when he is cycling reduces the danger of injury. He believes the probability of injury is 1%. He might be right, or he might be wrong.

2. Jo also reads an article about the risks of head injury due to alcohol consumption, which states it is 1%. The article states that to eliminate that risk drinkers should wear a helmet. He also believes that.

3. Jo wears a helmet when he goes cycling. He has reduced (he believes) his risk by 1%.

4. Jo could wear a helmet when he goes drinking. That would reduce his risk by an ADDITIONAL 1%. But he decides not to, because his friends would laugh and stop inviting him to the pub.

So Jo has the choice to reduce his risk (real or imagined) by 1% or 2%. Whether or not he wears a helmet to the pub doesn't have any effect upon the reduction in risk (real or imagined) of wearing a helmet when cycling. And it's certainly not "hypocrisy". If you attack somebody's belief in thing A because they don't do similar thing B you don't prove that their belief in thing A is "incorrect". The word you are avoiding, presumably because it doesn't have the same emotional impact as "hypocrisy", is "inconsistency". Inconsistency in action doesn't prove or disprove anything. It just "proves" that people behave in an inconsistent manner. No XXX Sherlock. Case closed, Columbo.

Here are some safety things that I do and don't do.

I don't run with scissors or knives, especially up or down stairs.
I haven't bought a bungalow to live in.
I don't wear chain mail gloves when cutting up vegetables.
I do wear thick gloves when working in the garden.
I wear gloves, eye protection, ear protection when working on my house.
I always wear a seat belt when driving.
I sometimes drive in the snow.

The choices that one makes about doing things which increase or decrease risk do not, usually, affect each other. If I drink too much alcohol then get behind the wheel of a car I have increased the risk to myself (and others). If I then fail to put on my seatbelt I have also increased the risk. The two things are ADDITIONAL, but not dependent. Either one of those things, ON ITS OWN, increases risk. Driving without a seatbelt, while sober, increases risk. Driving drunk WITH a seatbelt increases risk. Doing both together adds the risks together.

I am not a hypocrite if I genuinely believe that wearing a cycling helmet makes me safer, but go to the pub bare-headed. I'm just being inconsistent. Not wearing a helmet to the pub doesn't "prove" that wearing a cycling helmet is useless.

[mikeymo]

I have quoted it before, but since you are clearly not paying attention, I will quote some more.

You're right, I'm not paying attention to every single post that Mike Sales makes. Apologies for not being assiduous enough.

I think it's a good idea if you use a quotation from somewhere, to provide some sort of link to the reference. Much like academics do. A random quote with no statement as to where it came from isn't particularly helpful.

[Mike Sales]

I have quoted it before, but since you are clearly not paying attention, I will quote some more.

I think it is only courteous to pay attention to the arguments of those I disagree with.
To ignore them weakens my case.
If you had noticed my previous mentions of the benefits being "too modest to capture", you would have found it referenced.
Are you going to engage with what I say this time?
In case my previous post was one of those you skipped over, here is a summary.
Two well qualified experts have found that the sort of study you reference, that is, case controlled studies, have severe flaws and are not as reliable as what they call ecological studies which show no benefit from helmets.
They comment that the whole attempt to get cyclists into helmets is driven, not by science, but by other, irrelevant, factors.

Any links or references needed can be found above.