Why wear black?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
BlueRider
Posts: 80
Joined: 12 Dec 2019, 6:57pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby BlueRider » 5 Feb 2020, 3:20pm

Mike Sales wrote:
BlueRider wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:
Only if one can actually consider that high vis and plastic hats are actually PPE..
They aren't, they are at best a placebo.




Respectfully disagree.



This thread is in danger of being moved to the helmet ghetto.
I recommend that you read around the posts there. You seem to be naïve on the subject.
There is no good evidence that helmets reduce cycling casualties any more than hiviz does.


Naive because i disagree?

I am well aware of the anti-logic used to criticise PPE and that logic is no differently justified here than anywhere else.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 5330
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Why wear black?

Postby Oldjohnw » 5 Feb 2020, 3:24pm

BlueRider wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:
BlueRider wrote:

Respectfully disagree.



This thread is in danger of being moved to the helmet ghetto.
I recommend that you read around the posts there. You seem to be naïve on the subject.
There is no good evidence that helmets reduce cycling casualties any more than hiviz does.


Naive because i disagree?

I am well aware of the anti-logic used to criticise PPE and that logic is no differently justified here than anywhere else.


You should know that having a different view makes you a half-witted flat earther.
John

Mike Sales
Posts: 5269
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby Mike Sales » 5 Feb 2020, 3:24pm

BlueRider wrote:
Naive because i disagree?

I am well aware of the anti-logic used to criticise PPE and that logic is no differently justified here than anywhere else.


I was thinking rather of the evidence you are ignoring.
Read this.
https://www.badscience.net/2013/12/bicycle-helmets-and-the-law-a-perfect-teaching-case-for-epidemiology/

mattheus
Posts: 1564
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Why wear black?

Postby mattheus » 5 Feb 2020, 3:48pm

Oldjohnw wrote:
BlueRider wrote:
...
Naive because i disagree?

I am well aware of the anti-logic used to criticise PPE and that logic is no differently justified here than anywhere else.


You should know that having a different view makes you a half-witted flat earther.


Well ....

BlueRider jumped in with:

I have a different view. So you are bonkers, and think like flat-earthers.



What say you, Oldjohnw?

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

Re: Why wear black?

Postby BlueRider » 5 Feb 2020, 3:52pm

Mike Sales wrote:
BlueRider wrote:
Naive because i disagree?

I am well aware of the anti-logic used to criticise PPE and that logic is no differently justified here than anywhere else.


I was thinking rather of the evidence you are ignoring.
Read this.
https://www.badscience.net/2013/12/bicycle-helmets-and-the-law-a-perfect-teaching-case-for-epidemiology/


Seen that and other stuff before.

It is a discussion on the validity of statistics rather than risk/benefit. If you would have read it,you would have understood that the author is concluding that using hospital statistics to back up statutory helmet use is not a valid approach. Only.

As a paper waving exercise, it is chaimberlain-esque.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16378
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Why wear black?

Postby mjr » 5 Feb 2020, 3:57pm

BlueRider wrote:Seen that and other stuff before.

It is a discussion on the validity of statistics rather than risk/benefit. If you would have read it,you would have understood that the author is concluding that using hospital statistics to back up statutory helmet use is not a valid approach. Only.

As a paper waving exercise, it is chaimberlain-esque.

The mention of Chamberlain makes me think we're one step removed from the full Godwin law invocation.

Go on, then. Give it your best shot: what evidence have you used to form your incorrect conclusion that "Hi vis, etc does help reduce the risk and Helmets, etc reduces the consequences when the numbers don't fall in your favour"?
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 » 5 Feb 2020, 4:09pm

mjr wrote:
BlueRider wrote:Seen that and other stuff before.

It is a discussion on the validity of statistics rather than risk/benefit. If you would have read it,you would have understood that the author is concluding that using hospital statistics to back up statutory helmet use is not a valid approach. Only.

As a paper waving exercise, it is chaimberlain-esque.

The mention of Chamberlain makes me think we're one step removed from the full Godwin law invocation.

Go on, then. Give it your best shot: what evidence have you used to form your incorrect conclusion that "Hi vis, etc does help reduce the risk and Helmets, etc reduces the consequences when the numbers don't fall in your favour"?


A) Hi_vis: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/late ... ist-358674
Please don't give me the out of context defence here. Hi vis/reflective/high contrast coverings c/w flashing lights will, in 99% of cases (and i defy you to give me an example of the other 1% )help you be seen.
Everybody, and i mean everybody who does any works near vehicles wear hivis. Please don't pretend this is not the only significant indicator you need for its justification.

B) Helmets: https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/adv ... tsheet.pdf

Nothing is going to protect your head from heavy, full impacts. however i will take whatever help i can in any other scenario.
Don't confuse cause and effect. I am a grown adult and using a helmet doesn't turn me into evil knievel.
If you think that helmets don't protect you from abration and laceration injuries, then i don't quite know how to continue this discussion about them.

Mike Sales
Posts: 5269
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby Mike Sales » 5 Feb 2020, 4:10pm

BlueRider wrote:Seen that and other stuff before.

It is a discussion on the validity of statistics rather than risk/benefit. If you would have read it,you would have understood that the author is concluding that using hospital statistics to back up statutory helmet use is not a valid approach. Only.

As a paper waving exercise, it is chaimberlain-esque.


Speigelhalter and Goldacre say, in so many words, that the benefits of cycle helmets are too modest to capture. I would have thought that if they work, you should be able to tell, and in their judicious and scientific way, S & G are clear that no effect can be detected in all the studies they have examined.
Helmets believers are the ones who encourage cyclists to wear helmets, and in some cases want to compel wearing, so the burden of proof that there is any worthwhile effect lies with them.
S & G concentrate on hospital figures because these are the ones believers use to try to show efficacy, and because they demonstrate epidemiological difficulties..
Whole population figures are easier to interpret, and in no case where compulsion has forced a sudden and large jump in wearing rate has there been a beneficial change in cyclist injury rate. So population studies do not show that their conclusion of no detectable effect is mistaken, nor are they a particularly interesting case study in epidemiology. Too straightforward.

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

Re: Why wear black?

Postby BlueRider » 5 Feb 2020, 4:10pm

mattheus wrote:
Oldjohnw wrote:
BlueRider wrote:
...
Naive because i disagree?

I am well aware of the anti-logic used to criticise PPE and that logic is no differently justified here than anywhere else.


You should know that having a different view makes you a half-witted flat earther.


Well ....

BlueRider jumped in with:

I have a different view. So you are bonkers, and think like flat-earthers.



What say you, Oldjohnw?


Please don't paraphase me to suit your own agenda lol.

Mike Sales
Posts: 5269
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby Mike Sales » 5 Feb 2020, 4:16pm

BlueRider wrote:Don't confuse cause and effect. I am a grown adult and using a helmet doesn't turn me into evil knievel.
I


I suppose this is your knockdown refutation of any possibility of risk compensation.
I am afraid that risk compensation is a well known and accepted phenomenon.
People navigate their way in a world full of risks and rewards by taking into account their judgement of these factors. When the external environment changes they modify their behaviour.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16378
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Why wear black?

Postby mjr » 5 Feb 2020, 4:19pm

BlueRider wrote:
mjr wrote:
BlueRider wrote:Seen that and other stuff before.

It is a discussion on the validity of statistics rather than risk/benefit. If you would have read it,you would have understood that the author is concluding that using hospital statistics to back up statutory helmet use is not a valid approach. Only.

As a paper waving exercise, it is chaimberlain-esque.

The mention of Chamberlain makes me think we're one step removed from the full Godwin law invocation.

Go on, then. Give it your best shot: what evidence have you used to form your incorrect conclusion that "Hi vis, etc does help reduce the risk and Helmets, etc reduces the consequences when the numbers don't fall in your favour"?


A) Hi_vis: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/late ... ist-358674
Please don't give me the out of context defence here. Hi vis/reflective/high contrast coverings c/w flashing lights will, in 99% of cases (and i defy you to give me an example of the other 1% )help you be seen.
Everybody, and i mean everybody who does any works near vehicles wear hivis. Please don't pretend this is not the only significant indicator you need for its justification.

B) Helmets: https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/adv ... tsheet.pdf

Nothing is going to protect your head from heavy, full impacts. however i will take whatever help i can in any other scenario.
Don't confuse cause and effect. I am a grown adult and using a helmet doesn't turn me into evil knievel.
If you think that helmets don't protect you from abration and laceration injuries, then i don't quite know how to continue this discussion about them.

OK, so I feel your best shot seems to be to answer a different question. You have sort-of shown some inconclusive evidence that dazzle camo is distracting (far from 99% helpful - plenty of examples, including the TRL report on motorcyclists, have been given here already) and that helmets protect against impacts, but not shown that dazzle camo significantly reduces risk or that helmets significantly reduce consequences of all crashes.

"Everybody, and i mean everybody who does any works near vehicles wear hivis" is obviously untrue. Any day I go to town, I see loads of people working near vehicles without it. Even our police still wear black, our parking wardens still wear blue, our firemen still wear mustard and our ambulance crews still wear green. You may live in a stupider place, but I don't.

Also, your "I am a grown adult and using a helmet doesn't turn me into evil knievel" seems insulting to the victims of the risk-compensation effect of helmets. I take it that you don't agree with the findings of studies such as https://www.bath.ac.uk/case-studies/hel ... n-seeking/

But back to the point, would you like to try again to support the wild claim that "Hi vis, etc does help reduce the risk and Helmets, etc reduces the consequences" or to concede that you exaggerated the benefits?
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 » 5 Feb 2020, 4:39pm

mjr wrote:
BlueRider wrote:
mjr wrote:The mention of Chamberlain makes me think we're one step removed from the full Godwin law invocation.

Go on, then. Give it your best shot: what evidence have you used to form your incorrect conclusion that "Hi vis, etc does help reduce the risk and Helmets, etc reduces the consequences when the numbers don't fall in your favour"?


A) Hi_vis: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/late ... ist-358674
Please don't give me the out of context defence here. Hi vis/reflective/high contrast coverings c/w flashing lights will, in 99% of cases (and i defy you to give me an example of the other 1% )help you be seen.
Everybody, and i mean everybody who does any works near vehicles wear hivis. Please don't pretend this is not the only significant indicator you need for its justification.

B) Helmets: https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/adv ... tsheet.pdf

Nothing is going to protect your head from heavy, full impacts. however i will take whatever help i can in any other scenario.
Don't confuse cause and effect. I am a grown adult and using a helmet doesn't turn me into evil knievel.
If you think that helmets don't protect you from abration and laceration injuries, then i don't quite know how to continue this discussion about them.

OK, so I feel your best shot seems to be to answer a different question. You have sort-of shown some inconclusive evidence that dazzle camo is distracting (far from 99% helpful - plenty of examples, including the TRL report on motorcyclists, have been given here already) and that helmets protect against impacts, but not shown that dazzle camo significantly reduces risk or that helmets significantly reduce consequences of all crashes.

"Everybody, and i mean everybody who does any works near vehicles wear hivis" is obviously untrue. Any day I go to town, I see loads of people working near vehicles without it. Even our police still wear black, our parking wardens still wear blue, our firemen still wear mustard and our ambulance crews still wear green. You may live in a stupider place, but I don't.

Also, your "I am a grown adult and using a helmet doesn't turn me into evil knievel" seems insulting to the victims of the risk-compensation effect of helmets. I take it that you don't agree with the findings of studies such as https://www.bath.ac.uk/case-studies/hel ... n-seeking/

But back to the point, would you like to try again to support the wild claim that "Hi vis, etc does help reduce the risk and Helmets, etc reduces the consequences" or to concede that you exaggerated the benefits?


In your 1st paraghraph, you have argued that PPE doesn't have a significant effect. I will happily take the insignificant effects on my daily commute then. Any reduction of risk or injury is welcome.

Your comment about the emergency services is deflectory. Yes, they all wear blue,red,green etc, when not roadside.

Your comment about risk aversion? What does that have to do with the protection benefits of wearing a helmet?

Your responses seem more like a defence ( and a poor one) of your position rather than a justification of the facts.

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

Re: Why wear black?

Postby BlueRider » 5 Feb 2020, 4:43pm

Mike Sales wrote:
BlueRider wrote:Don't confuse cause and effect. I am a grown adult and using a helmet doesn't turn me into evil knievel.
I


I suppose this is your knockdown refutation of any possibility of risk compensation.
I am afraid that risk compensation is a well known and accepted phenomenon.
People navigate their way in a world full of risks and rewards by taking into account their judgement of these factors. When the external environment changes they modify their behaviour.



God no, risk compensation is very much an observable human trait (seat belts anyone?).

But in my context, when i am cycling, it is an irellevence (As much as one could possibly say). I am a careful and responsible cyclist. Especially on the roads. I doubt the same could be said for a young lad bombing through the forest on his MTB or BMX, in which case i imagine a helmet and crash protection would make him feel like superman.

Context.

Mike Sales
Posts: 5269
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Why wear black?

Postby Mike Sales » 5 Feb 2020, 4:52pm

BlueRider wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:
BlueRider wrote:Don't confuse cause and effect. I am a grown adult and using a helmet doesn't turn me into evil knievel.
I


I suppose this is your knockdown refutation of any possibility of risk compensation.
I am afraid that risk compensation is a well known and accepted phenomenon.
People navigate their way in a world full of risks and rewards by taking into account their judgement of these factors. When the external environment changes they modify their behaviour.



God no, risk compensation is very much an observable human trait (seat belts anyone?).


But in my context, when i am cycling, it is an irellevence (As much as one could possibly say). I am a careful and responsible cyclist. Especially on the roads. I doubt the same could be said for a young lad bombing through the forest on his MTB or BMX, in which case i imagine a helmet and crash protection would make him feel like superman.

Context.


You claim immunity from this trait? You are welcome to your illusions, but risk compensation is not always as gross as you imagine. Small changes in behaviour or judgement, given the many decisions made in a typical cycling journey, or year, can easily absorb whatever small safety margin a helmet gives.
You are correct about seat belts. Cyclist and pedestrian casualties went up when they were mandated. I do not think that you should except yourself from the normal run of humanity.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16378
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Why wear black?

Postby mjr » 5 Feb 2020, 4:54pm

BlueRider wrote:
mjr wrote:But back to the point, would you like to try again to support the wild claim that "Hi vis, etc does help reduce the risk and Helmets, etc reduces the consequences" or to concede that you exaggerated the benefits?


In your 1st paraghraph, you have argued that PPE doesn't have a significant effect. I will happily take the insignificant effects on my daily commute then. Any reduction of risk or injury is welcome.

That's up to you, but I feel those insignificant effects aren't worth the plastic pollution and other secondary disbenefits such as discouraging cycling. There is no evidence of any reduction of risk or injury and, as others explain above, cycling stuff is not PPE.

BlueRider wrote:Your comment about the emergency services is deflectory. Yes, they all wear blue,red,green etc, when not roadside.

At the roadside too. Even when on the roads. I attach a picture of a local cycling police officer.

BlueRider wrote:Your comment about risk aversion? What does that have to do with the protection benefits of wearing a helmet?

Quite a small risk compensation (not aversion) effect can completely negate any impact protection benefits and more.

BlueRider wrote:Your responses seem more like a defence ( and a poor one) of your position rather than a justification of the facts.

Then I apologise because they were meant to be a challenge to your poor position! I note that you seem to have decided not to try again to find evidence that dazzle camo reduces risk or that helmet use reduces the consequences.
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.