helmets from Why wear black?

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.
Bsteel
Posts: 131
Joined: 31 Jul 2014, 8:41pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby Bsteel » 6 Feb 2020, 1:14pm

I am curious as why once someone chooses to wear a helmet to prevent some level of injury their risk assessment doesn't drive them to wearing some form of full face helmet like those for enduro or downhill riding ?

Mike Sales
Posts: 4447
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby Mike Sales » 6 Feb 2020, 1:15pm

BlueRider wrote:
The binary logic on display in this thread is that because they won't stop you from being squshed, they are utterly useless.

Bonkers.


I cannot recall any helmet sceptic saying anything like that. However, if all helmets do is avert the odd scratch, this is rather at odds with the believers' propaganda about living as a brain damaged vegetable as a result of neglecting to wear a foam hat.

I think that the authors of the BMJ editorial came to the conclusion of "benefit too modest to capture" because reported injuries did not show detectable decrease with helmet wearing. They do comment that other safety interventions have clear benefits. I fear that a road safety establishment like ours neglects these interventions, i.e. the ones which can be shown to work, in favour of helmets, which cannot be shown to work.
This is a distraction and an alibi, and helmet promotion abets this.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4447
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby Mike Sales » 6 Feb 2020, 1:24pm

BlueRider wrote:
This is in relation to medical statistics which only see the peak of the injuries sustained. Somebody falling off a bike and damaging their helmet and not the head won't appear on these statistics and never do. Those that do appear in hospitals usually do so after a very serious accident which no amount of protect would have helped.

Fairly obvious imho.


In my experience anyone involved in an accident with any significant head impact gets careful medical attention.
If these injuries to cyclists decreased because helmet wearing increases turned them into negligible bumps, then the statistics should detect a decrease in cyclist admissions.
I am puzzled otherwise. Can you really be saying that helmets don't make a detectable difference?

BlueRider
Posts: 80
Joined: 12 Dec 2019, 6:57pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby BlueRider » 6 Feb 2020, 1:29pm

Mike Sales wrote:
BlueRider wrote:
The binary logic on display in this thread is that because they won't stop you from being squshed, they are utterly useless.

Bonkers.


I cannot recall any helmet sceptic saying anything like that. However, if all helmets do is avert the odd scratch, this is rather at odds with the believers' propaganda about living as a brain damaged vegetable as a result of neglecting to wear a foam hat.

I think that the authors of the BMJ editorial came to the conclusion of "benefit too modest to capture" because reported injuries did not show detectable decrease with helmet wearing. They do comment that other safety interventions have clear benefits. I fear that a road safety establishment like ours neglects these interventions, i.e. the ones which can be shown to work, in favour of helmets, which cannot be shown to work.
This is a distraction and an alibi, and helmet promotion abets this.


Yet here you are stating helemts don't do anything. Clearly, both nothing and everything is incorrect and the truth lies inbetween.
Protection from compression injuries, lacerations, cuts, bruises, punctures, mild concussions, fractures, etc are reason enough for me to wear one. I don't expext it to stop my brain become soup should the #192 have its way so let not pretend that either extreme are justifiable.

And as per the cause and effect disconnection with regards to helmet use and driver behaviour, secondary effects of wearing PPE are an irellevence to this discussion.

BlueRider
Posts: 80
Joined: 12 Dec 2019, 6:57pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby BlueRider » 6 Feb 2020, 1:32pm

Mike Sales wrote:
BlueRider wrote:
This is in relation to medical statistics which only see the peak of the injuries sustained. Somebody falling off a bike and damaging their helmet and not the head won't appear on these statistics and never do. Those that do appear in hospitals usually do so after a very serious accident which no amount of protect would have helped.

Fairly obvious imho.


In my experience anyone involved in an accident with any significant head impact gets careful medical attention.
If these injuries to cyclists decreased because helmet wearing increases turned them into negligible bumps, then the statistics should detect a decrease in cyclist admissions.
I am puzzled otherwise. Can you really be saying that helmets don't make a detectable difference?


Congrats on getting the correlation that helmets stop serious head injuries (and thus removes that incident from the injury statistics).

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15025
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Why wear black?

Postby mjr » 6 Feb 2020, 1:37pm

BlueRider wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:If these injuries to cyclists decreased because helmet wearing increases turned them into negligible bumps, then the statistics should detect a decrease in cyclist admissions.
I am puzzled otherwise. Can you really be saying that helmets don't make a detectable difference?


Congrats on getting the correlation that helmets stop serious head injuries (and thus removes that incident from the injury statistics).

Except that isn't what Mike Sales said and they don't. See attached:
Image Attachments
helmetscaled.png
Helmet usage against casualties, sourced from RRCGB and ETSC PIN
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

BlueRider
Posts: 80
Joined: 12 Dec 2019, 6:57pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby BlueRider » 6 Feb 2020, 1:41pm

mjr wrote:
BlueRider wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:If these injuries to cyclists decreased because helmet wearing increases turned them into negligible bumps, then the statistics should detect a decrease in cyclist admissions.
I am puzzled otherwise. Can you really be saying that helmets don't make a detectable difference?


Congrats on getting the correlation that helmets stop serious head injuries (and thus removes that incident from the injury statistics).

Except that isn't what Mike Sales said and they don't. See attached:


Can you give some context to this graph?

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15025
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Why wear black?

Postby mjr » 6 Feb 2020, 1:46pm

BlueRider wrote:
mjr wrote:
BlueRider wrote:
Congrats on getting the correlation that helmets stop serious head injuries (and thus removes that incident from the injury statistics).

Except that isn't what Mike Sales said and they don't. See attached:


Can you give some context to this graph?

It is an example of plotting helmet usage rates against pedal cycle casualty rates in the manner I suggested you try earlier, showing that the two rates vary without noticeable correlation. It is possible to do it more robustly if you wish, but you will struggle to find any real-world one showing a correlation without judicious selection of the data.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3872
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Why wear black?

Postby pjclinch » 6 Feb 2020, 1:49pm

BlueRider wrote:
Congrats on getting the correlation that helmets stop serious head injuries (and thus removes that incident from the injury statistics).


So why don't the serious injury or fatality rates go down with increasing helmet use?
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

BlueRider
Posts: 80
Joined: 12 Dec 2019, 6:57pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby BlueRider » 6 Feb 2020, 1:51pm

mjr wrote:
BlueRider wrote:
mjr wrote:Except that isn't what Mike Sales said and they don't. See attached:


Can you give some context to this graph?

It is an example of plotting helmet usage rates against pedal cycle casualty rates in the manner I suggested you try earlier, showing that the two rates vary without noticeable correlation. It is possible to do it more robustly if you wish, but you will struggle to find any real-world one showing a correlation without judicious selection of the data.


Can you provide a link to the article. Without context, the data is meaningless as we have proved with the out of context quotes from the previous papers.

BlueRider
Posts: 80
Joined: 12 Dec 2019, 6:57pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby BlueRider » 6 Feb 2020, 1:52pm

pjclinch wrote:
BlueRider wrote:
Congrats on getting the correlation that helmets stop serious head injuries (and thus removes that incident from the injury statistics).


So why don't the serious injury or fatality rates go down with increasing helmet use?


Because helmets don't protect against serious injury or death as has been discussed to death in the last dozen or so pages....

Mike Sales
Posts: 4447
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby Mike Sales » 6 Feb 2020, 1:53pm

BlueRider wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:
BlueRider wrote:Congrats on getting the correlation that helmets stop serious head injuries (and thus removes that incident from the injury statistics).


I cannot imagine that this gross misreading is deliberate. I can only suggest closer attention to what I actually wrote.


This whole thread is full of misleading and misreading.

I read what was written and responded accordingly. Try it yourself...


I am still puzzled. Would you be so good as to quote me saying anything resembling this?
I have said the contrary several times.
I have repeated only too often that the assessment of two professionals in the field s of risk and assessment of medical interventions is that the benefits of helmet wearing are "too modest to capture". This is scientist speak for no evidence of benefits.
I have pointed out that in no country where legal compulsion has produced sudden, large changes in wearing rate has there been any reduction in cyclist injury rates.
Between countries is a strong correlation between helmet wearing, high cycling casualties and low numbers cycling. The countries where helmets are rarely worn have high cycling rates and low cyclist casualty rates.
I believe that it is easy to see what sort of cycling we should encourage.
Enough?

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15025
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Why wear black?

Postby mjr » 6 Feb 2020, 1:57pm

BlueRider wrote:
mjr wrote:
BlueRider wrote:Can you give some context to this graph?

It is an example of plotting helmet usage rates against pedal cycle casualty rates in the manner I suggested you try earlier, showing that the two rates vary without noticeable correlation. It is possible to do it more robustly if you wish, but you will struggle to find any real-world one showing a correlation without judicious selection of the data.


Can you provide a link to the article. Without context, the data is meaningless as we have proved with the out of context quotes from the previous papers.

There is no article. I simply plotted the cycle helmet usage rates for various years from the European Traffic Safety Council (ETSC) Public Information Note against cyclist injury rates from the Reported Road Casualties of Great Britain (RRCGB) data for the same years. I'm sure the contexts of these datasets are familiar to someone who has assessed the risk reduction from helmet usage, or lack thereof. They are both imperfect and the strongest we currently have.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

BlueRider
Posts: 80
Joined: 12 Dec 2019, 6:57pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby BlueRider » 6 Feb 2020, 1:58pm

Mike Sales wrote:
BlueRider wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:
I cannot imagine that this gross misreading is deliberate. I can only suggest closer attention to what I actually wrote.


This whole thread is full of misleading and misreading.

I read what was written and responded accordingly. Try it yourself...


I am still puzzled. Would you be so good as to quote me saying anything resembling this?
I have said the contrary several times.
I have repeated only too often that the assessment of two professionals in the field s of risk and assessment of medical interventions is that the benefits of helmet wearing are "too modest to capture". This is scientist speak for no evidence of benefits.
I have pointed out that in no country where legal compulsion has produced sudden, large changes in wearing rate has there been any reduction in cyclist injury rates.
Between countries is a strong correlation between helmet wearing, high cycling casualties and low numbers cycling. The countries where helmets are rarely worn have high cycling rates and low cyclist casualty rates.
I believe that it is easy to see what sort of cycling we should encourage.
Enough?


You keep picking statistics to suit your agenda, yes, agreed.

Simple question: in a cycling accident involving the head, would you personally rather be wearing a helmet or not?

BlueRider
Posts: 80
Joined: 12 Dec 2019, 6:57pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby BlueRider » 6 Feb 2020, 1:58pm

mjr wrote:
BlueRider wrote:
mjr wrote:It is an example of plotting helmet usage rates against pedal cycle casualty rates in the manner I suggested you try earlier, showing that the two rates vary without noticeable correlation. It is possible to do it more robustly if you wish, but you will struggle to find any real-world one showing a correlation without judicious selection of the data.


Can you provide a link to the article. Without context, the data is meaningless as we have proved with the out of context quotes from the previous papers.

There is no article. I simply plotted the cycle helmet usage rates for various years from the European Traffic Safety Council (ETSC) Public Information Note against cyclist injury rates from the Reported Road Casualties of Great Britain (RRCGB) data for the same years. I'm sure the contexts of these datasets are familiar to someone who has assessed the risk reduction from helmet usage, or lack thereof. They are both imperfect and the strongest we currently have.


"I made it up"

:roll: