Helmet worked for me

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
Jdsk
Posts: 27735
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Helmet worked for me

Post by Jdsk »

cycle tramp wrote: 8 Aug 2024, 4:54pm
tim-b wrote: 8 Aug 2024, 6:48am In 2022 Imperial College found the following:
They found that change in speed at impact were good predictors of brain injury, as were the impact direction and the presence of head protection worn by cyclists.
and
Claire Baker said: “Brain injury was more likely in car users involved in impacts from the side, and where the change in speed was greater, like during a head-on collision. It was also more likely in vulnerable road users, particularly where no head protection was worn.”
(Both quotes https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/233900/ ... p-predict/ )
Well....... duh. Yes, of course brain injury is more likely from side impacts and head on impacts if you are in a car and it suffers a collision... the sudden change in movement (or declaration) is likely to mean your head collides with something.
Tacking on the sentence 'it was also more likely in vulnerable road users particularly where no head protection is worn'... is meaningless without any percentages given.
...
My emboldening.

The quoted link is to a press release. The substantive publication is:
"The relationship between road traffic collision dynamics and traumatic brain injury pathology"
Claire E. Baker, Phil Martin, Mark H. Wilson, Mazdak Ghajari, David J. Sharp
Brain Communications, Volume 4, Issue 2, 2022, fcac033
https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcac033

It includes some relevant statistics.

Jonathan
cycle tramp
Posts: 4321
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Helmet worked for me

Post by cycle tramp »

....indeed, having read the report the overall feeling one gets is that, 'oh, you'd better wear a helmet in case a car crashes into you'....

...which gives one the feeling that one's own rights are curtailed because people can't drive safely..

..I look forward to their next paper which suggests if you remove bicycles from the road entirely... no cyclist is ever injured in a collision again...
Unlimited economic growth in a world of finite resources doesn't fit nor does it guarantee happiness.
Jdsk
Posts: 27735
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Helmet worked for me

Post by Jdsk »

cycle tramp wrote: 8 Aug 2024, 7:18pm ....indeed, having read the report the overall feeling one gets is that, 'oh, you'd better wear a helmet in case a car crashes into you'....

...which gives one the feeling that one's own rights are curtailed because people can't drive safely..
Yes, it depends on which question you're asking and whether you want to switch to another question rather than studying what's known and what isn't known about the original question.

Jonathan
Stevek76
Posts: 2185
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Helmet worked for me

Post by Stevek76 »

mattheus wrote: 6 Aug 2024, 10:04am
deeferdonk wrote: 29 Jul 2024, 9:35am Quite a lot of mentioning here that you are more likely to get a head injury in a car than on a bike. Is that actually true? Or is there just more car related head injuries because there's a lot more people in cars in the first place? Is it still true per person/per mile etc?
Generally, yes it's true.
Of course if you never drive, it's less true. If you never cycle, it's very true!

It's definitely true that a measure to reduce CAR occupant deaths-by-head-injury by x% would save more lives than one for cyclists.
Accounting for distance or time travelled or trips taken though then no, car travel is safer at least here in Britain. A screen grab from a study suggesting otherwise does go around Twitter occasionally but those stats are from the US where the motor fatality rate is quite a lot worse.


That said, it's less than an order of magnitude safer, particularly by time travelled/per trip and walking places actually has a higher fatality rate by distance in Britain. The point of the question therefore remains valid. Why the disproportionate focus on cycling helmets?
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
cycle tramp
Posts: 4321
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Helmet worked for me

Post by cycle tramp »

Stevek76 wrote: 8 Aug 2024, 7:46pm
mattheus wrote: 6 Aug 2024, 10:04am
deeferdonk wrote: 29 Jul 2024, 9:35am Quite a lot of mentioning here that you are more likely to get a head injury in a car than on a bike. Is that actually true? Or is there just more car related head injuries because there's a lot more people in cars in the first place? Is it still true per person/per mile etc?
Generally, yes it's true.
Of course if you never drive, it's less true. If you never cycle, it's very true!

It's definitely true that a measure to reduce CAR occupant deaths-by-head-injury by x% would save more lives than one for cyclists.
That said, it's less than an order of magnitude safer, particularly by time travelled/per trip and walking places actually has a higher fatality rate by distance in Britain. The point of the question therefore remains valid. Why the disproportionate focus on cycling helmets?
Part of me wonders if its about the perceived dangers of balancing. If the every-day bicycle was a recumbent trike, then the focus would be on high-vis...
..however because the every-day bicycle is a single tracked vehicle there's the (perceived) risk if falling off and hitting your head.. which is understandable... the perceived risk is managed by experience....
However if a parent or guardian hasn't cycled..they've not been able to manage the perceived risk and pass on the notion of the risk to the child. The helmet has come about simply due to a public lack of trust in our ability to balance..
..that's not say I haven't fallen off (wet drain cover, ridge of grit in the road, down hill section) and sometimes when I have I've worn a helmet and sometimes I haven't.

..In writing this, there will be the possibility that as I grow ever more older my sense if balance will diminish - if that becomes the case then I'd probably wear a helmet more often when I cycle.. however my future inability to balance isn't an argument for compulsion.
Unlimited economic growth in a world of finite resources doesn't fit nor does it guarantee happiness.
drossall
Posts: 6275
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Helmet worked for me

Post by drossall »

Stevek76 wrote: 8 Aug 2024, 7:46pmThe point of the question therefore remains valid. Why the disproportionate focus on cycling helmets?
cycle tramp wrote: 8 Aug 2024, 10:04pmPart of me wonders if its about the perceived dangers of balancing.
I think Stevek76's question is addressed by Ben Goldacre, whom I quoted a couple of pages back.
The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.
In my interpretation of these words, we tend to focus on some activities as "dangerous", regardless of the fact that others with comparable statistical risk levels are not classified as such. Then it can become more important to be seen to be doing something than it is that that something should be the most effective response. But it's not important to respond to risk in the comparable activities, because those are not (at least yet) seen as dangerous, whatever the numbers may say.
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 6079
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Helmet worked for me

Post by pjclinch »

tim-b wrote: 8 Aug 2024, 6:48am In 2022 Imperial College found the following:
They found that change in speed at impact were good predictors of brain injury, as were the impact direction and the presence of head protection worn by cyclists.
and
Claire Baker said: “Brain injury was more likely in car users involved in impacts from the side, and where the change in speed was greater, like during a head-on collision. It was also more likely in vulnerable road users, particularly where no head protection was worn.”
(Both quotes https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/233900/ ... p-predict/ )

If your argument is that car drivers should wear helmets, then you're linking cyclists in too. I'd suggest that you steer clear of that argument :)
The raising of helmets for car occupants is typically not that it should actually happen, but the mirror point of what you suggest above, i.e., pointing out to those saying riders ought to wear lids that If your argument is that cyclists should wear helmets, then you're linking drivers in too. .
It is typically hoped that steering clear of that argument may be inferred, but that tends not to happen.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
tim-b
Posts: 2281
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 8:20am

Re: Helmet worked for me

Post by tim-b »

Thanks Pete
The car driver argument is whataboutery at its best, rather than a constructive, useful argument

I understand the "mirror" point that you make though :)
~~~~¯\(ツ)/¯~~~~
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 5129
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Helmet worked for me

Post by slowster »

tim-b wrote: 12 Aug 2024, 7:08am The car driver argument is whataboutery at its best, rather than a constructive, useful argument
As a professional practice, a field of study and an academic discipline, assessment of a given risk routinely requires that it is put into context by comparing it with other hazards to which people are exposed, especially if it involves the same or similar groups of people, or similar levels of risk in terms of probability and/or severity.

Whataboutery is a logical fallacy which is an appropriate term where the subject matter involves absolutes, e.g. questions of morality. Using it as an argument in the context of a scientific discipline, is cherry picking.
tim-b
Posts: 2281
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 8:20am

Re: Helmet worked for me

Post by tim-b »

Dress it up any way you like, it's whataboutery :)

Well, if we have to wear a helmet, whatabout them?
~~~~¯\(ツ)/¯~~~~
Jdsk
Posts: 27735
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Helmet worked for me

Post by Jdsk »

tim-b wrote: 12 Aug 2024, 7:08am ...
The car driver argument is whataboutery at its best, rather than a constructive, useful argument
...
Thanks for posting this.

I'd been planning to add some comments about when argument by analogy is helpful and when it isn't. And sometimes it's just about all that we have.

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.

Jonathan
mattheus
Posts: 5656
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Helmet worked for me

Post by mattheus »

Jdsk wrote: 12 Aug 2024, 8:49am 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.

Jonathan
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 ... )
User avatar
Audax67
Posts: 6192
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 9:02am
Location: Alsace, France
Contact:

Re: Helmet worked for me

Post by Audax67 »

mattheus wrote: 12 Aug 2024, 9:05am 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*.

Mind you, back then a 200€ bandsaw from East Germany would cut a beautiful straight line with only slight adjustment. The Metabo I bought in 2017 refuses to be tamed - and has such excessive blade protection that you can't get a clear sight of the blade. I fixed that by removing as much of it as possible but it's still horrible. I stopped using the built-in light because it threw a shadow in the wrong place.

' lie: I don't feel guilty but I know I ought to.
Have we got time for another cuppa?
mattheus
Posts: 5656
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Helmet worked for me

Post by mattheus »

Audax67 wrote: 12 Aug 2024, 9:51am
mattheus wrote: 12 Aug 2024, 9:05am 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.
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 5129
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Helmet worked for me

Post by slowster »

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.
Post Reply