Helmet worked for me

[Cugel]

The only reason to call it whataboutery, is to avoid addressing the issues of relative and comparative risks. Failure to do so results in questionable decisions by individuals about risk, and poor decisions by those in a position to influence matters and take decisions about risk which affect others.

Dismiss it as whataboutery if you wish, but don't expect your opinons to be treated as anything other than just opinions and not to be similarly dimissed.

As I'm sure you know, it's a commonplace tactic for those of a purist science-is-all perspective to approach issues, problems, phenomena in general with a reductionist* approach. They prefer to look only at the tightly-defined subject matter and ignore or belittle the wider context as irrelevant.

But in reality, everything is connected to everything else, often in a highly complex matrix of dynamic relationships impossible to reduce to a set of discreet and distinct parts operating in their own little closed systems.

*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

[Audax67]

howabout this question:
what activities in normal life should we look at more PPE for?

Hah. 35 years ago I worked wood without mask, protective glasses or earplugs. Now, thx to Modern Awareness I wear all three and I'm so uncomfortable and detached from reality that I can hardly see what I'm doing, and I still feel guilty occasionally that I haven't a workshop air filter*.

Ok, thanks for posting this.

I wouldn't say woodworking with power tools is some obscure, rare activity; but it seems a little tenuous to put it in the same category as everyday transportation, used by every age group and demographic, for school, shopping, work commutes and (occasiionally) fun.

You did say activities in normal life, and hobby woodworking is a big part of normal life for an awful lot of people, just as cycling is.

I'd guess that the rise of the "you need PPE" meme closely parallels that of YouTube. It all helps to sell stuff, too - usually plastic.

[mattheus]

You did say activities in normal life, and hobby woodworking is a big part of normal life for an awful lot of people, just as cycling is.

OK, whatever ...

[drossall]

I'm confused by the whataboutery business. The underlying argument is, in my understanding:

• One side says, "Any rational person will wear a cycle helmet, owing to the risks"
• The other responds, "But the risks, as best we can measure them, are much lower than for this other activity, where no-one is proposing similar measures"

Audax67 is right to point out that we now wear protection for activities where previously we did not. But rational decisions still mean that we'll consider the relative risks.

In effect, previously, we wore protection for high-risk activities. Now, we do so for moderate-risk as well. But none of that addresses the previous point, which is that, if protection is being advocated for an activity that is lower-risk than another for which it is not, then the basis is not rational, but instead a subjective decision that this is dangerous and this other is not.

That does seem to have happened with cycling to at least some degree. Society has decided that, "Cycling is dangerous", and so is beginning to expect helmets. By extension, helmets are now worn for any other activity involving wheels. I particularly struggle with low-speed things - it makes no sense to me to put a helmet on a child who is riding a small scooter, and then take it off while the same child runs at the same speed on the same surface.

By all means move the scale along so that protection is worn for more activities. But start with the more dangerous.

[Jdsk]

I'm confused by the whataboutery business. The underlying argument is, in my understanding:

• One side says, "Any rational person will wear a cycle helmet, owing to the risks"
• The other responds, "But the risks, as best we can measure them, are much lower than for this other activity, where no-one is proposing similar measures"

Audax67 is right to point out that we now wear protection for activities where previously we did not. But rational decisions still mean that we'll consider the relative risks.
...

I wouldn't start with "sides". I'd start with we know and we don't know, and only get to decisions after that, whether they're individual or collective or regulatory.

And the first assertion is loaded. I don't think that's the relevant question when I go out for a ride. It's more like "What effect will wearing a helmet on this ride have on my safety?".

And why would other risks be relevant in that situation? Imagine someone who never travels in a car: why would the risk of head injury in a car be relevant to them?

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

But the use of this line of reasoning on this topic in this forum is often whataboutery. Of course as always it depends on what question is is being asked.

Thanks for posting this.

howabout this question:
what activities in normal life should we look at more PPE for?

(My proposal:
car occupants make up most of the visitors to A&E, very often with head injuries.
It therefore seems logical to look at PPE for them. I have read studies showing that helmets would benefit the occupants. Should we look into this further?
Yours Sincerely,
etc etc ... )

Yes, that's a good question.

But questions commonly asked in this forum are "Should I wear a cycle helmet for this ride?", "Should this celebrity have expressed a view on wearing a cycle helmet?", "Should governments mandate wearing of cycle helmets?".

And different questions can have different answers.

Jonathan

PS:
"car occupants make up most of the visitors to A&E, very often with head injuries."
Is the first part of this true?

[drossall]

And the first assertion is loaded. I don't think that's the relevant question when I go out for a ride. It's more like "What effect will wearing a helmet on this ride have on my safety?".

And why would other risks be relevant in that situation? Imagine someone who never travels in a car: why would the risk of head injury in a car be relevant to them?

I agree that the first assertion was loaded. That was rather the point. I also agree that your question is better. However, there is a subtext. For example, if I have the choice of two routes then, regardless of my mode of transport, I will only focus on which might be safer if the difference is likely to be significant. Arguably, with our modern focus on safety, that's now more like 10% safer, as opposed to 50% or whatever before.

But regardless, no normal person does everything possible to be safe, because it would take far too long and be too much of an obstacle to normal life. So there is some measure in there of whether the difference is "significant".

Where the context is person A telling person B to use a safety measure, it becomes reasonable to ask whether person A is consistent. If A can be shown to advocate one measure, but ignore another that is more significant in a comparable situation, then A's approach becomes so subjective that the advice is not useful. That's where the loaded assertion comes in - it says that any reasonable person would do this, when the basis for the advice is clearly not reason but subjective perception.

[cycle tramp]

And different questions can have different answers.

Jonathan

PS:
"car occupants make up most of the visitors to A&E, very often with head injuries."
Is the first part of this true?

The question in the post script shows how statics can skewed to give a different view than what may be meant... the word of the question rather than spirit... in this case the answer is yes - car occupants make up most of the visitors to a&e, if only because a large amount of a&e visitors are driven into a&e rather than brought know by ambulance..
And many of them will have head injuries... possibly by hitting their head on something, tripping up, being in a physical fight and so on...

[tim-b]

The problem with "Whatabout car drivers? They should wear helmets too..." is that some bright spark sees that as a good suggestion.

They then develop a private car helmet standard, which will differ from racing car standards, due to multiple airbags, etc.
They realise that their niche career can be extended by "improving" cycle helmet standards and, in a similar manner to Audax67 and his Metabo saw, make them unusable. Except that unlike the saw in private use, it's now the law

In the meantime the even better protected car drivers are even more invulnerable and become even worse drivers

Well done, everyone!

Use constructive arguments, based on the evidence, not whataboutery

[drossall]

The use of helmets in many spheres of life is increasing anyway, especially given current concerns about concussion. And research was being done decades ago in Australia on helmets for car drivers, and in Japan on helmets for child pedestrians. That kind of thing is likely to recur. I think I'm taking a different view from you because, in general, the increased focus on safety over recent decades has been a benefit. My objection is not to helmets in principle, as though they should not be worn for any activity. Rather, I prefer to avoid the cherry-picking of activities on the basis that they are seen socially as "dangerous", and "We have to do something", whilst missing greater opportunities in activities that are seen as "safe".

Instead, I'd like to see an evidence-based approach that focuses first on the most dangerous things. It also understands why helmets are worn - for example, I understand that climbing helmets are more about stones and other objects falling from above than for banged heads (so understanding the reasoning helps participants to know whether they are so important in solo climbing? I'm not an expert.) Finally, it asks whether the benefits outweigh the issues (which is something of a social call affected by the view of safety above).

I myself haven't actually mentioned driving as a comparator because I think the issues are a bit involved, and I didn't want to complicate an already involved discussion further.

[Stevek76]

And the first assertion is loaded. I don't think that's the relevant question when I go out for a ride. It's more like "What effect will wearing a helmet on this ride have on my safety?".
Jonathan

Is it? From an H&S perspective that's not a particularly great way to go about it. You don't go in assuming a given mitigation, then work out if it's needed. You identify the potential hazards and assess their likelihood. Then for those considered unacceptably high you work through possible mitigations considering the hierarchy of controls.

Some sort of risk assessment must have subconsciously happened for the question of whether a helmet would help ride safety arose in the first place? It's perfectly reasonable to query that initial assumption, particularly in light of alternative activities where that subconscious risk assessment for 99% of people concludes 'no problem' even though we have reasonably robust data on causality rates that show people are far from rational in those subconscious assessments

[jb]

The problem with "Whatabout car drivers? They should wear helmets too..." is that some bright spark sees that as a good suggestion.

They then develop a private car helmet standard, which will differ from racing car standards, due to multiple airbags, etc.
They realise that their niche career can be extended by "improving" cycle helmet standards and, in a similar manner to Audax67 and his Metabo saw, make them unusable. Except that unlike the saw in private use, it's now the law

In the meantime the even better protected car drivers are even more invulnerable and become even worse drivers

Well done, everyone!

Use constructive arguments, based on the evidence, not whataboutery

Certainly helmet manufacturers & government departments looking to justify their existence will think its a good idea.

[Audax67]

... we now wear protection for activities where previously we did not. But rational decisions still mean that we'll consider the relative risks.

Of course, there's another reason for the rise in PPE: the surging avidity of personal-injury lawyers in the US, with the knock-on effect that insurance companies will try anything to wriggle their way out of admitting liability. "Claimant wasn't wearing armour when ..." where ... is anything from opening a can of beans to tightrope-walking across Niagara. As the US goes so goes the world (when was the last time you were in a railway station, and where the hell did "breaking" come from? Every time I hear it I want to add wind.), so while our lawyers might not be such beady-eyed drooling monsters the cultural influence prevails and we're now clad in stiff bits of plastic (with recyclable stamped on them, of course - believe it if you will).

[pjclinch]

I don't think that's the relevant question when I go out for a ride. It's more like "What effect will wearing a helmet on this ride have on my safety?".

I think that's the question a lot of people like to think they're asking, but I suspect the actual question is "do I feel happier wearing this or not?"

Reasons for either wearing or not wearing will often be rationalisations, which is normal and natural for people but I think it would be useful if more folk realised their "objective risk assessments" are For Some Values Of "objective".

Pete

[JohnR]

My wife gave me a helmet as a Crhistmas present around 15 years ago. I considered it unnecessary at that time but got into the habit of wearing it. While I haven't yet tested the helmet's effectiveness against road impact (and hope to avoid it in the future) there's been the occasional collosion with a low-hanging branch. I'm aware that my reflexes are slowing and I'm losing agility which reduces the ability to take a tumble and land on the less fragile parts of my body, all of which is becoming more fragile with age.