Page 1 of 2

Re: Four year old killed by bike helmet.

Posted: 12 Feb 2020, 2:41pm
by [XAP]Bob
mikeymo wrote:I agree. I wonder why so many people are using the tragic death of a small child to push their agenda.

It seems that "evidence" and "rationality" aren't really that valued after all.


That's the question we ask every time a kid breaks their arm and the press declare that had he been wearing a helmet it would all have been fine.
Or a kid gets killed by a person using a car, and obviously their chest injuries wouldn't have happened if they had a magic hat on.

The evidence absolutely does *not* support an intervention for cranial safety when cycling... Because the intervention is a positive action then that is the side which should have the evidence.
Here we have a clear example where the obsession with "You must wear your magic hat out to play" has caused a death (and it's not an isolated incident).

We know that cycle helmets cause death (because of them being over-worn), and we know that despite our best efforts we can't find a benefit on a population level.
We also know that the mere promotion acts as a not insignificant barrier to people cycling - i.e. it has a net negative effect on health.

If you follow the evidence base then there is no suggestion that magic hats are useful. If you feel that you (or your dependents) are at a significant risk of a single vehicle collision which would result in a cranial collision then fine - but I the vast majority of people don't think that far.

moderator note: split from viewtopic.php?f=41&t=135031&start=90

Re: Four year old killed by bike helmet.

Posted: 12 Feb 2020, 6:15pm
by mikeymo
[XAP]Bob wrote:
mikeymo wrote:I agree. I wonder why so many people are using the tragic death of a small child to push their agenda.

It seems that "evidence" and "rationality" aren't really that valued after all.


That's the question we ask every time a kid breaks their arm and the press declare that had he been wearing a helmet it would all have been fine.
Or a kid gets killed by a person using a car, and obviously their chest injuries wouldn't have happened if they had a magic hat on.

The evidence absolutely does *not* support an intervention for cranial safety when cycling... Because the intervention is a positive action then that is the side which should have the evidence.
Here we have a clear example where the obsession with "You must wear your magic hat out to play" has caused a death (and it's not an isolated incident).

We know that cycle helmets cause death (because of them being over-worn), and we know that despite our best efforts we can't find a benefit on a population level.
We also know that the mere promotion acts as a not insignificant barrier to people cycling - i.e. it has a net negative effect on health.

If you follow the evidence base then there is no suggestion that magic hats are useful. If you feel that you (or your dependents) are at a significant risk of a single vehicle collision which would result in a cranial collision then fine - but I the vast majority of people don't think that far.


A pretty sure sign that rationality isn't valued, or even understood at all, is when somebody totally ignores a point being made, and instead talks about a different thing. I believe it's called a "strawman".

That's what you just did.

I didn't talk about any of the things that you just did. None of these are things I said:

"That's the question we ask every time a kid breaks their arm and the press declare that had he been wearing a helmet it would all have been fine."

"Or a kid gets killed by a person using a car, and obviously their chest injuries wouldn't have happened if they had a magic hat on."

Somebody made an assertion. Here is the full post, for completeness:

mikeymo wrote:
Mick F wrote:
mikeymo wrote:https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1227.html

"In absolute terms, the risk of death through wearing a helmet is VERY SMALL."
Of course.

In absolute terms, the risk of death by not wearing a cycle helmet is very small too, if not smaller.

The whole idea of wearing one is to make you safer.


"if not smaller". You have some data to support that comparison?


I asked for evidence. EVIDENCE ABOUT THE COMPARISON. Is that clear enough?

But I didn't get any. There was a pretty blunt refusal.

If people want to talk rationally, do so. But just declaring "I'm rational", doesn't mean one is. I daresay the old saw about declaring that one is "a lady" might often be an appropriate analogy.

Re: Four year old killed by bike helmet.

Posted: 12 Feb 2020, 6:54pm
by The utility cyclist
BlueRider wrote:An outlier event which in no way has any relation to helmet use for cycling.

RIp.

When car seats for children were highlighted as being flawed and ended up with a child dying and others injured. Do you think they kept with the same design and just called it an outlier? :twisted:

Re: Four year old killed by bike helmet.

Posted: 13 Feb 2020, 7:18am
by Mick F
mikeymo wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:
mikeymo wrote:I agree. I wonder why so many people are using the tragic death of a small child to push their agenda.

It seems that "evidence" and "rationality" aren't really that valued after all.


That's the question we ask every time a kid breaks their arm and the press declare that had he been wearing a helmet it would all have been fine.
Or a kid gets killed by a person using a car, and obviously their chest injuries wouldn't have happened if they had a magic hat on.

The evidence absolutely does *not* support an intervention for cranial safety when cycling... Because the intervention is a positive action then that is the side which should have the evidence.
Here we have a clear example where the obsession with "You must wear your magic hat out to play" has caused a death (and it's not an isolated incident).

We know that cycle helmets cause death (because of them being over-worn), and we know that despite our best efforts we can't find a benefit on a population level.
We also know that the mere promotion acts as a not insignificant barrier to people cycling - i.e. it has a net negative effect on health.

If you follow the evidence base then there is no suggestion that magic hats are useful. If you feel that you (or your dependents) are at a significant risk of a single vehicle collision which would result in a cranial collision then fine - but I the vast majority of people don't think that far.


A pretty sure sign that rationality isn't valued, or even understood at all, is when somebody totally ignores a point being made, and instead talks about a different thing. I believe it's called a "strawman".

That's what you just did.

I didn't talk about any of the things that you just did. None of these are things I said:

"That's the question we ask every time a kid breaks their arm and the press declare that had he been wearing a helmet it would all have been fine."

"Or a kid gets killed by a person using a car, and obviously their chest injuries wouldn't have happened if they had a magic hat on."

Somebody made an assertion. Here is the full post, for completeness:

mikeymo wrote:
Mick F wrote:Of course.

In absolute terms, the risk of death by not wearing a cycle helmet is very small too, if not smaller.

The whole idea of wearing one is to make you safer.


"if not smaller". You have some data to support that comparison?


I asked for evidence. EVIDENCE ABOUT THE COMPARISON. Is that clear enough?

But I didn't get any. There was a pretty blunt refusal.

If people want to talk rationally, do so. But just declaring "I'm rational", doesn't mean one is. I daresay the old saw about declaring that one is "a lady" might often be an appropriate analogy.
Read this section of the forum for yourself. Make your own mind up, but don't you dare say you haven't been given any evidence! :shock:

There is plenty evidence that cycle helmets don't work. Look on this forum! Read, and inwardly digest.

At least two things you'll find, as well as the data to prove it:

By wearing one, the rider rides differently and vehicle drivers treat them differently.

The countries that have made helmets compulsory have a population who now cycle less.
Cycling has health benefits and by discouraging folk from cycling by suggesting it's a dangerous form of transport, puts them into cars. Not much of a health benefit driving a car.

Re: Four year old killed by bike helmet.

Posted: 13 Feb 2020, 8:29am
by BlueRider
Mick F wrote:
mikeymo wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:
That's the question we ask every time a kid breaks their arm and the press declare that had he been wearing a helmet it would all have been fine.
Or a kid gets killed by a person using a car, and obviously their chest injuries wouldn't have happened if they had a magic hat on.

The evidence absolutely does *not* support an intervention for cranial safety when cycling... Because the intervention is a positive action then that is the side which should have the evidence.
Here we have a clear example where the obsession with "You must wear your magic hat out to play" has caused a death (and it's not an isolated incident).

We know that cycle helmets cause death (because of them being over-worn), and we know that despite our best efforts we can't find a benefit on a population level.
We also know that the mere promotion acts as a not insignificant barrier to people cycling - i.e. it has a net negative effect on health.

If you follow the evidence base then there is no suggestion that magic hats are useful. If you feel that you (or your dependents) are at a significant risk of a single vehicle collision which would result in a cranial collision then fine - but I the vast majority of people don't think that far.


A pretty sure sign that rationality isn't valued, or even understood at all, is when somebody totally ignores a point being made, and instead talks about a different thing. I believe it's called a "strawman".

That's what you just did.

I didn't talk about any of the things that you just did. None of these are things I said:

"That's the question we ask every time a kid breaks their arm and the press declare that had he been wearing a helmet it would all have been fine."

"Or a kid gets killed by a person using a car, and obviously their chest injuries wouldn't have happened if they had a magic hat on."

Somebody made an assertion. Here is the full post, for completeness:

mikeymo wrote:
"if not smaller". You have some data to support that comparison?


I asked for evidence. EVIDENCE ABOUT THE COMPARISON. Is that clear enough?

But I didn't get any. There was a pretty blunt refusal.

If people want to talk rationally, do so. But just declaring "I'm rational", doesn't mean one is. I daresay the old saw about declaring that one is "a lady" might often be an appropriate analogy.
Read this section of the forum for yourself. Make your own mind up, but don't you dare say you haven't been given any evidence! :shock:

There is plenty evidence that cycle helmets don't work. Look on this forum! Read, and inwardly digest.

At least two things you'll find, as well as the data to prove it:

By wearing one, the rider rides differently and vehicle drivers treat them differently.

The countries that have made helmets compulsory have a population who now cycle less.
Cycling has health benefits and by discouraging folk from cycling by suggesting it's a dangerous form of transport, puts them into cars. Not much of a health benefit driving a car.



As in the other arguments on cycling safety (of which i have had to let go due to the ferocity of the opinions), you continue to confuse the secondary effects of helmet wearing to negate their use.

A helmet is simply their to help reduce the severity of an injury in an minor/moderate accident.

How other road users treat you by wearing one is an utter irrelevence.
How other cyclists respond to having to wear one is an utter irrelevence.
How gross statistics are affect by their use is an utter irrelevence.
How misuse and freak accidents occour is an utter irrelevence.
HOw they don't save your life in a 30mph head on collision is an irrelevence.

The only think of any relevence at all with a helment is its ability to mitigate minor/moderate injury. In that regard, they do the job and depending on the accident, can do it well.

Give the strawman arguments and deflections a rest. It does the discussion no favours at all.

Re: Four year old killed by bike helmet.

Posted: 13 Feb 2020, 9:25am
by niggle
BlueRider wrote:As in the other arguments on cycling safety (of which i have had to let go due to the ferocity of the opinions), you continue to confuse the secondary effects of helmet wearing to negate their use.

A helmet is simply their to help reduce the severity of an injury in an minor/moderate accident.

How other road users treat you by wearing one is an utter irrelevence.
How other cyclists respond to having to wear one is an utter irrelevence.
How gross statistics are affect by their use is an utter irrelevence.
How misuse and freak accidents occour is an utter irrelevence.
HOw they don't save your life in a 30mph head on collision is an irrelevence.

The only think of any relevence at all with a helment is its ability to mitigate minor/moderate injury. In that regard, they do the job and depending on the accident, can do it well.

Give the strawman arguments and deflections a rest. It does the discussion no favours at all.

Just focusing on the protection a helmet may give to the head in low speed tumbles, and ignoring any other consequences, as listed by you as irrelevant, is equivalent to drug manufacturers making a drug that cures piles and ignoring the fact that it also causes terminal cancer. If you accept the secondary effects of helmet wearing are true then you cannot then ignore them as if they are not, they are totally relevant to the wearer and would not occur without the wearing of the helmet. Your accusation of straw man arguments is nonsense, whilst you are resorting to extreme cherry picking.

Re: Four year old killed by bike helmet.

Posted: 13 Feb 2020, 9:39am
by Mike Sales
niggle wrote:Just focusing on the protection a helmet may give to the head in low speed tumbles, and ignoring any other consequences, as listed by you as irrelevant, is equivalent to drug manufacturers making a drug that cures piles and ignoring the fact that it also causes terminal cancer. If you accept the secondary effects of helmet wearing are true then you cannot then ignore them as if they are not, they are totally relevant to the wearer and would not occur without the wearing of the helmet. Your accusation of straw man arguments is nonsense, whilst you are resorting to extreme cherry picking.


Perhaps more like a drug which might treat the symptoms of piles, but is then pushed by the deluded as the best cure for cancer, to the neglect of proven treatments.

Re: Four year old killed by bike helmet.

Posted: 13 Feb 2020, 6:56pm
by Cyril Haearn
I do wish the police in Australia and elsewhere would persecute speeding motorists instead of persecuting unh*****d cyclists, as noted elsewhere on these fora

Re: Four year old killed by bike helmet.

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 1:04pm
by [XAP]Bob
BlueRider wrote:As in the other arguments on cycling safety (of which i have had to let go due to the ferocity of the opinions), you continue to confuse the secondary effects of helmet wearing to negate their use.

A helmet is simply their to help reduce the severity of an injury in an minor/moderate accident.

How other road users treat you by wearing one is an utter irrelevence.
How other cyclists respond to having to wear one is an utter irrelevence.
How gross statistics are affect by their use is an utter irrelevence.
How misuse and freak accidents occour is an utter irrelevence.
HOw they don't save your life in a 30mph head on collision is an irrelevence.

The only think of any relevence at all with a helment is its ability to mitigate minor/moderate injury. In that regard, they do the job and depending on the accident, can do it well.

Give the strawman arguments and deflections a rest. It does the discussion no favours at all.


NO

If the act of wearing a helmet increases the chances of a collision by even a tiny fraction of a percentage point then it has undone any benefit that may have been had.

Since studies have shown that motorists often pass helmeted cyclists closer than unhelmeted cyclists it doesn't take a huge leap to suggest that that tiny increase is more than just likely.

Furthermore the injuries against which a hat protects are not generally life altering or life threatening - which is what is stated at every turn by everyone other than the helmet manufacturers. Those manufacturers make no claims about safety whatsoever.

Re: Four year old killed by bike helmet.

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 1:07pm
by BlueRider
[XAP]Bob wrote:
BlueRider wrote:As in the other arguments on cycling safety (of which i have had to let go due to the ferocity of the opinions), you continue to confuse the secondary effects of helmet wearing to negate their use.

A helmet is simply their to help reduce the severity of an injury in an minor/moderate accident.

How other road users treat you by wearing one is an utter irrelevence.
How other cyclists respond to having to wear one is an utter irrelevence.
How gross statistics are affect by their use is an utter irrelevence.
How misuse and freak accidents occour is an utter irrelevence.
HOw they don't save your life in a 30mph head on collision is an irrelevence.

The only think of any relevence at all with a helment is its ability to mitigate minor/moderate injury. In that regard, they do the job and depending on the accident, can do it well.

Give the strawman arguments and deflections a rest. It does the discussion no favours at all.


NO

If the act of wearing a helmet increases the chances of a collision by even a tiny fraction of a percentage point then it has undone any benefit that may have been had.

Since studies have shown that motorists often pass helmeted cyclists closer than unhelmeted cyclists it doesn't take a huge leap to suggest that that tiny increase is more than just likely.

Furthermore the injuries against which a hat protects are not generally life altering or life threatening - which is what is stated at every turn by everyone other than the helmet manufacturers. Those manufacturers make no claims about safety whatsoever.


Again, this is not an issue for helmet use to mitigate head injury.

Re: Four year old killed by bike helmet.

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 1:08pm
by [XAP]Bob
mikeymo wrote:I asked for evidence. EVIDENCE ABOUT THE COMPARISON. Is that clear enough?

But I didn't get any. There was a pretty blunt refusal.


Actually you got pointed to a large body of work - this very forum.

It's not difficult to read through and get the evidence you asked for, since it has had to be trotted out *so* often that it gets rather boring typing it again and again.

Find one study which shows, at a population level, a statistically significant decrease in head injuries (preferably as a comparison with, say, broken wrists - since both should end in hospital and get recorded, and the comparison should eliminate factors such as type of cyclist and distance cycled) that is associated with helmet wearing.

The stats tend to show no difference at all... i.e. a hat has the same protective effect on your limbs as it does to your head.

Yet another helmet thread (split from 4 year old...)

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 1:10pm
by [XAP]Bob
BlueRider wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:
BlueRider wrote:As in the other arguments on cycling safety (of which i have had to let go due to the ferocity of the opinions), you continue to confuse the secondary effects of helmet wearing to negate their use.

A helmet is simply their to help reduce the severity of an injury in an minor/moderate accident.

How other road users treat you by wearing one is an utter irrelevence.
How other cyclists respond to having to wear one is an utter irrelevence.
How gross statistics are affect by their use is an utter irrelevence.
How misuse and freak accidents occour is an utter irrelevence.
HOw they don't save your life in a 30mph head on collision is an irrelevence.

The only think of any relevence at all with a helment is its ability to mitigate minor/moderate injury. In that regard, they do the job and depending on the accident, can do it well.

Give the strawman arguments and deflections a rest. It does the discussion no favours at all.


NO

If the act of wearing a helmet increases the chances of a collision by even a tiny fraction of a percentage point then it has undone any benefit that may have been had.

Since studies have shown that motorists often pass helmeted cyclists closer than unhelmeted cyclists it doesn't take a huge leap to suggest that that tiny increase is more than just likely.

Furthermore the injuries against which a hat protects are not generally life altering or life threatening - which is what is stated at every turn by everyone other than the helmet manufacturers. Those manufacturers make no claims about safety whatsoever.


Again, this is not an issue for helmet use to mitigate head injury.


Yes it is - if wearing a hat exposes you to more risk than not wearing a hat then the outcome is, on a population level, worse than it would be without the hat.

Hats would, in the above scenario (which isn't far fetched) actually *cause* head injuries.

Re: Yet another helmet thread (split from 4 year old...)

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 1:50pm
by profpointy
One clear reason why helmets must increase the likelihood of head injury is that they make your head significantly bigger - something between 50% and 100% bigger I would think - bear in mind risk of being hit is usually proportional to the cross-section of the target.

Even if they mitigate the effect of being hit for medium level of impact (mostly likely true) it is fair to ask if this overcomes the 50%-100% greater chance of hitting your head in the first place. The statistics seem to suggest not

Re: Four year old killed by bike helmet.

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 2:10pm
by Vorpal
BlueRider wrote:Again, this is not an issue for helmet use to mitigate head injury.

Isn't it? If helmets make (just for the sake of argument) a 10% increase in survivability of crashes, but increase the population level risk of crashes by 14%, what have you mitigated?

Re: Yet another helmet thread (split from 4 year old...)

Posted: 14 Feb 2020, 3:05pm
by fullupandslowingdown
so....... what about cash in transit operatives? They started off wearing the old leather pudding bowls, and over time have progressed to what appear to be almost motorcycle standard crash hats complete with visors to protect face against liquid attack, and rear neck extensions to protect the base of the head from coshing.

Are they more prone to say heat stroke wearing those things, choking or unintended self contact with vehicle interiors when exiting? (how many times have I hit my hardhat on scaffolding poles fixed 5'10" above the walkway... :roll: )

I'm actually honestly surprised that they don't wear modern cut resistant jackets instead of short sleeved shirts to protect against knife attack. Though with global warming I can appreciate it must get rather warm for them.

I suppose what I am leading to is the British approach to policing i.e we don't routinely arm our cops because we believe in policing by consent and that an armed police force results in many more criminals arming themselves which we believe results in more deaths, particularly of innocent bystanders. There is this belief that some people will hesitate to do something that they know will seriously harm another i.e smash them over their unprotected head with an iron bar, but conversely if faced with a person wearing head gear will feel the need to hit that as hard as possible, because anything less will have no effect and allow the victim to continuing resisting the theft etc. Such is the nature of human logic.

( Except that there does seem to have been an influx of criminals who aren't abiding by our code of criminal conduct, and somewhat unsportingly are going proceeding to arm themselves straight away. )