Evaluating the impact of cycle helmet use...

[tim-b]

Hi

Helmets save lives, end of, get over it

Read the "Discussion" section (link) for this Spanish study (after the "Abstract" section)
Regards
tim-b

[reohn2]

......... Helmets save lives, end of, get over it.

I think you bought the blurb and are convinced that you'll die if you don't wear a helmet,when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

[tim-b]

Hi

......... Helmets save lives, end of, get over it.

I think you bought the blurb and are convinced that you'll die if you don't wear a helmet,when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

"Results Non-use of a helmet was directly associated with death..." Read the "Discussion" section (link) for this Spanish study (after the "Abstract" section)
Regards
tim-b

[pjclinch]

As per usual, nothing is made of consequential escalation. For example, a helmet less rider, is hit in the head, by an object, whilst riding. Loses control, due to being stunned, goes under a truck, the death is attributed to multiple injuries, no one looks at what started the chain of events, because of the ending. Same happens if a helmet less rider falls off, and their head hits the deck, they spin much further into the road, than they would have done, if they’d remained relatively responsive, wearing a lid, they get hit by a vehicle, that wouldn’t have hit them if they’d not gone so far into the road, again the death is put down to multiple injuries, which a helmet wouldn’t have helped with, without looking at the start of the event chain. Helmets save lives, end of, get over it.

Deary me. Or, if we decide to have the opposite result when predetermining our conclusion we'll come up with a different notional accident with a helmeted rider with a consequently bigger head is caught by something that would otherwise have missed them, loses control as a result, goes under a truck etc.

If you really think you have a point (and speaking as someone who examines masters research work as part of my job, I don't think you do) then put it in a paper and send it to the BMJ and they'll have a peer-review (that's peers in the sense of know the subject and about study designs and the nature of different cohorts etc.) and let you know what they think. Anyone can do this, if it's robust there's no reason it wouldn't be published, so why don't you?

If helmets saved lived at the population level, and remember the whole population's anecdotes put together are everything that happens, then we would see lower serious injury and death rates with increased helmet use. We don't, so while the odd life may have been saved somewhere the odd life may have been lost somewhere too. At a public policy (i.e., giving advice to others) they have no track record of improving injury rates, end of, get over it.

Pete.

[Jdsk]

If helmets saved lived at the population level, and remember the whole population's anecdotes put together are everything that happens, then we would see lower serious injury and death rates with increased helmet use. We don't...

Could you provide a summary of the evidence supporting that assertion, please?

Thanks

Jonathan

[Marcus Aurelius]

As per usual, nothing is made of consequential escalation. For example, a helmet less rider, is hit in the head, by an object, whilst riding. Loses control, due to being stunned, goes under a truck, the death is attributed to multiple injuries, no one looks at what started the chain of events, because of the ending. Same happens if a helmet less rider falls off, and their head hits the deck, they spin much further into the road, than they would have done, if they’d remained relatively responsive, wearing a lid, they get hit by a vehicle, that wouldn’t have hit them if they’d not gone so far into the road, again the death is put down to multiple injuries, which a helmet wouldn’t have helped with, without looking at the start of the event chain. Helmets save lives, end of, get over it.

Deary me. Or, if we decide to have the opposite result when predetermining our conclusion we'll come up with a different notional accident with a helmeted rider with a consequently bigger head is caught by something that would otherwise have missed them, loses control as a result, goes under a truck etc.

If you really think you have a point (and speaking as someone who examines masters research work as part of my job, I don't think you do) then put it in a paper and send it to the BMJ and they'll have a peer-review (that's peers in the sense of know the subject and about study designs and the nature of different cohorts etc.) and let you know what they think. Anyone can do this, if it's robust there's no reason it wouldn't be published, so why don't you?

If helmets saved lived at the population level, and remember the whole population's anecdotes put together are everything that happens, then we would see lower serious injury and death rates with increased helmet use. We don't, so while the odd life may have been saved somewhere the odd life may have been lost somewhere too. At a public policy (i.e., giving advice to others) they have no track record of improving injury rates, end of, get over it.

Pete.

That’s some minutes of my life wasted I won’t get back. I’ve heard some utter lunacy from helmet deniers before, but that drivel, posted there, puts the tin hat ( or indeed helmet) on it.

[pjclinch]

"Results Non-use of a helmet was directly associated with death..." Read the "Discussion" section (link) for this Spanish study (after the "Abstract" section)

Or you could read the Goldacre/Spiegelhalter editorial which points out some of the confounding problems in doing the research, and why the research is such a mess that it doesn't really contribute much. I can cherry pick my way through the pile and "prove" all sorts of things, but if you look at the pile as a whole it tells you that there's a lot of noise and it obscures any signal. Taking a single study and saying "but this one says!" isn't really helpful.

Nobody (or hardly anybody, at least) wants to stop you from wearing something you want to wear, but the level of truly convincing evidence needed to ethically support a public health intervention needs to be considerably higher than for individuals. This is very well illustrated by childhood risk expert Tim Gill's consultancy piece for the charity National Children's Bureau (https://timrgill.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/cycling-rpt-gill-05.pdf where he has a 20 page Annex on helmets (a substantial proportion of the whole report). The conclusions are that at policy level the case for recommending or requiring helmets has not been properly made, but the author pointed out in a postscript he wore one and required his daughter to wear one for reasons he admitted didn't really cut it for a consultancy report.

Pete.

[Jdsk]

Or you could read the Goldacre/Spiegelhalter editorial which points out some of the confounding problems in doing the research, and why the research is such a mess that it doesn't really contribute much. I can cherry pick my way through the pile and "prove" all sorts of things, but if you look at the pile as a whole it tells you that there's a lot of noise and it obscures any signal. Taking a single study and saying "but this one says!" isn't really helpful.

Yes. Any sensible discussion from here on should be based on systematic review methods, not cherrypicked single studies.

Jonathan

[pjclinch]

If helmets saved lived at the population level, and remember the whole population's anecdotes put together are everything that happens, then we would see lower serious injury and death rates with increased helmet use. We don't...

Could you provide a summary of the evidence supporting that assertion, please?

Oh good grief, no I'm not going to do that because it's necessary to DIY if you want to avoid bias. But as a starter for 10 start with Dorothy Robinson's work looking at the effect of helmet laws in Oz.

[Jdsk]

The conclusions are that at policy level the case for recommending or requiring helmets has not been properly made, but the author pointed out in a postscript he wore one and required his daughter to wear one for reasons he admitted didn't really cut it for a consultancy report.

There's nothing wrong with the precautionary principle when the level of evidence is inadequate for anything better. Of course the topical illustration of that is wearing a mask to prevent spread of a virus.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

If helmets saved lived at the population level, and remember the whole population's anecdotes put together are everything that happens, then we would see lower serious injury and death rates with increased helmet use. We don't...

Could you provide a summary of the evidence supporting that assertion, please?

Oh good grief, no I'm not going to do that because it's necessary to DIY if you want to avoid bias.

I totally disagree. It's the methods that remove bias not the authorship.

Jonathan

[pjclinch]

Or you could read the Goldacre/Spiegelhalter editorial which points out some of the confounding problems in doing the research, and why the research is such a mess that it doesn't really contribute much. I can cherry pick my way through the pile and "prove" all sorts of things, but if you look at the pile as a whole it tells you that there's a lot of noise and it obscures any signal. Taking a single study and saying "but this one says!" isn't really helpful.

Yes. Any sensible discussion from here on should be based on systematic review methods, not cherrypicked single studies.

Then you won't have a sensible discussion. The only thing claiming to be a systematic review is Jake Olivier's, but as he cherry picks the hospital studies which tend to come out strongly in favour for the confounding reasons pointed out, it's a bit of a nonsense.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I’ll stick to the only evidence I’ll ever need. Having had two very similar incidents, in two very similar sets of circumstances, the outcome of the one whilst wearing a lid was far more satisfactory, than the one that happened whilst not wearing a lid.

[pjclinch]

Could you provide a summary of the evidence supporting that assertion, please?

Oh good grief, no I'm not going to do that because it's necessary to DIY if you want to avoid bias.

I totally disagree. It's the methods that remove bias not the authorship.

What I mean is if I give you a summary from a field of hundreds of papers it will probably be biased according to my particular means and methods. You need to go off to the library and put something together yourself if you're serious about doing it properly.

I did that about 20 years ago when challenged to review my championing of helmet use as "common sense", I did, and it changed my mind. I have not kept up with the minutiae for a few years now because it just goes round and round in the same circles.

Pete.

[pjclinch]

I’ll stick to the only evidence I’ll ever need. Having had two very similar incidents, in two very similar sets of circumstances, the outcome of the one whilst wearing a lid was far more satisfactory, than the one that happened whilst not wearing a lid.

Nobody is disagreeing with your personal decision to wear a helmet in your personal context. Quite why you have such a big problem with your context not being the only one, I'm not sure...