|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry about this, but you can never have enough helmet posts. Springboard for something better
Arghhhhhhh! Just when we thought it was safe and the fine weather
arrived, a passing helmet reference spawns the plague. OK STOP - THE LOT OF YOU There's something a lot better to work on where there's a big benefit. The background (1) /If/ Hs are useful at all, then the benefit is marginal and unproven (2) If people want to or not - let them (3) Everyday cycling isn't an extreme sport (YMMV for sport/off-road. The following is for everyday cycling.) The wrong question and right answer (4) "Should I wear a helmet?" ... "Training is 100 times more effective that a helmet" (Discussion below) Change of perception (5) Modern society leans towards 'magic' things that 'make you safer'. Cyclists are a bit different - They know the value of taking responsibility for themselves. (6) The endless studies of helmet efficacy could be put into perspective by a simple analysis - which can start here - So 'statistics' for H can be 'kicked into touch' by similar for 'training'. Discussion So that's the outline. In this short post I don't intend to visit every single nook, cranny, exception and diversion. The object is to move the 'debate' away from "helmets - Good or bad?" to "Helmet's are a long way down the line after training." "100 times" Eh? Where does this figure spring from and what exactly is "training"? (a) If a helmet costs say £40 then compare the benefit of £40 worth of training with that of a helmet. For this we can try to look at the two with/without cases and count the number of life-saving' incidents where each was effective. To do this we need a rough idea of the frequency of accidents and in the H-case the effectiveness of preventing worse and in the T-case number avoided. Doing this accurately is impossible but it might be possible to get an order of magnitude. Here are my back of the envelope calculations (One of the objectives of this post is to encourage alternative b-o-e calculations - a spread of educated guesses is better than a single estimate. My assumptions are easily challenged - Good.) (b) By 'training' I mean getting confident in all matters of bike handling, road position and interacting with other road users. (NB Experience is not a substitute for knowledge.) For example using gears, keeping out of the gutter and knowing how to be seen. Let us assume a notional cyclist who 'knows how to ride a bike' to the extent of a bit about gears, has some lights and has been known to cycle 10 miles in one go. But on the other hand, hugs the side of the road, sometimes uses pavements, gets squashed at road narrowings, takes shopping home in a carrier from the handlebars and thinks that a yellow shirt shows up at night. Q1 How many 'crashes' are they likely to have in ten years? Q2 How many of these will be mitigated by a helmet? If this cyclist is much more road-aware then Q3 How many crashes will never happen? Q4 How many will be reduced in severity? Figures out of thin air! A1 is much larger if non-crash incidents with potential for something worse are considered. A1 say 10 A2 say 3 A3 say 9 A3 say 9 So that £40 resulted in 3 not-so-bad crashes with a helmet or 9 never-happened crashes with training. Training is for life and a helmet is for 5 years. 10 years the helmet had to be replaced 3 times (even without crashing 2 times) so let's say the helmet cost was £100. Cost Benefit H £100 3 less severe crashes T £40 9 never happened crashes It is easy to see how much more value for money T is than H. It is also easy to see where the shortcomings of the analysis lie. Please don't flame, I've tried to use middle-of-the-road figures for the sake of illustration not to be taken as gospel. Please make your own estimates and let us know. [But not while the sun is shining, you have better things to do]. Conclusion (7) It is my belief that training is at least one and probably two orders of magnitude more beneficial than helmets. (8) This assertion is transparently open to confirmation or refutation by the use of alternative assumptions as suggested through the massive experience of URC (9) Furthermore, this means that the 'helmet debate' is a mere sideline and public awareness of the value of training needs bringing to the fore. See (4) above. ============================================= Working from the data contained in http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downloads/pdf/LRSR/Topic_Factsheets/Pedal-Cyclist-Casualties-04-05.pdf I've worked out the average distance between accidents. Slight - 75,000 miles Killed/Seriously injured - 460,000 miles Any - 66,000 miles This takes into account the known under-reporting at a constant 60% which is more pessimistic than the best estimate also provided. For somebody doing 5000 miles a year this is: Slight - 15 years Killed/Seriously injured - 92 years Any - 13 years ============================================= -- PETER FOX Not the same since the submarine business went under www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry about this, but you can never have enough helmet posts. Springboard for something better
"Peter Fox" wrote in message news Arghhhhhhh! Just when we thought it was safe and the fine weather arrived, a passing helmet reference spawns the plague. Discussion So that's the outline. In this short post This must be some definition of "short" which isn't in any of my dictionaries. I couldn't be bothered to read anything after this, so I'm assuming that this is another troll. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry about this, but you can never have enough helmet posts. Springboard for something better
"Peter Fox" wrote in
message news Arghhhhhhh! Just when we thought it was safe and the fine weather arrived, a passing helmet reference spawns the plague. OK STOP - THE LOT OF YOU Personally if/when those doctors of influence who frequent this group succed in changing the BMA's stance on the issue, then I may be persuaded to not go with 'headwear' (on my electric assist bike) but in the meantime the ball is in their court to persuade all those other doctors who voted on the matter that they got it wrong. Paul M |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry about this, but you can never have enough helmet posts. Springboard for something better
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:40:08 +0100, "Paul Murphy"
wrote: "Peter Fox" wrote in message news Arghhhhhhh! Just when we thought it was safe and the fine weather arrived, a passing helmet reference spawns the plague. OK STOP - THE LOT OF YOU Personally if/when those doctors of influence who frequent this group succed in changing the BMA's stance on the issue, then I may be persuaded to not go with 'headwear' (on my electric assist bike) but in the meantime the ball is in their court to persuade all those other doctors who voted on the matter that they got it wrong. Have you ever considered taking responsibility for your own decisions about your safety? Oh, I suppose you'll say you have: you've made a decsion to let a group of people who have no particular qualification in analysing the *causes* of traumatic injury to make the decision for you. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry about this, but you can never have enough helmet posts.Springboard for something better
Paul Murphy wrote on 14/04/2007 12:40 +0100:
Personally if/when those doctors of influence who frequent this group succed in changing the BMA's stance on the issue, then I may be persuaded to not go with 'headwear' (on my electric assist bike) but in the meantime the ball is in their court to persuade all those other doctors who voted on the matter that they got it wrong. Out of curiousity did you only take up wearing a helmet 18 months ago when the BMA changed its stance or were you using a different rationalisation before then? -- Tony "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry about this, but you can never have enough helmet posts. Springboard for something better
On Apr 14, 7:40 am, "Paul Murphy"
wrote: "Peter Fox" wrote in messagenews Arghhhhhhh! Just when we thought it was safe and the fine weather arrived, a passing helmet reference spawns the plague. OK STOP - THE LOT OF YOU Personally if/when those doctors of influence who frequent this group succed in changing the BMA's stance on the issue, then I may be persuaded to not go with 'headwear' (on my electric assist bike) but in the meantime the ball is in their court to persuade all those other doctors who voted on the matter that they got it wrong. Paul M I don't know about the BMA's resolution but my bet would be it was based on ignorance , poor research or the pious thought that a helmet MUST help. The Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine supports mandatory helmet laws. Here is their position paper : http://www.casm-acms.org/forms/state...ikeHelmets.pdf It would get a failing grade as a high school paper. The inability to even get the Thompson, Rivara and Thompson reference correct is an indication of the high quality of the research. It goes down hill after that. But I am sure it is used all the time as a reason to recommend wearing helmets. I would have believed it myself except that I know the actual research literature. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry about this, but you can never have enough helmet posts.Springboard for something better
John Kane wrote:
I don't know about the BMA's resolution but my bet would be it was based on ignorance , poor research or the pious thought that a helmet MUST help. You're being /far/ too kind to the BMA. They took a well researched, fairly comprehensively argued piece that said compulsion was a Bad Thing, scrapped it and created a new one which ignored much of the same research they'd already looked at the first time around, added in some really terrible opinion pieces in their place, rounded off with a few anecdotes, cited laws passed elsewhere as reasons we need one with no effort to assess if they've had a useful effect, and then got it voted in using tactics that would have looked dubious at a party conference in the former Eastern Bloc. Still, they /must/ be good, and the end justifies the means, right? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry about this, but you can never have enough helmet posts. Springboard for something better
Den 2007-04-14 12:22:35 skrev Peter Fox
: Arghhhhhhh! Just when we thought it was safe and the fine weather arrived, a passing helmet reference spawns the plague. OK STOP - THE LOT OF YOU Uh, ok. Erik Sandblom -- Oil is for sissies |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry about this, but you can never have enough helmet posts. Springboard for something better
"Tony Raven" wrote in message
news Paul Murphy wrote on 14/04/2007 12:40 +0100: Personally if/when those doctors of influence who frequent this group succed in changing the BMA's stance on the issue, then I may be persuaded to not go with 'headwear' (on my electric assist bike) but in the meantime the ball is in their court to persuade all those other doctors who voted on the matter that they got it wrong. Out of curiousity did you only take up wearing a helmet 18 months ago when the BMA changed its stance or were you using a different rationalisation before then? If you're wanting a case to take to them in support of getting their stance changed then the answer is I bought my helmet early in 2006 after the BMA had made it's policy decision to encourage helmet use and their policy influenced my decision. Good luck getting a change made! If the case is really that clear-cut, I imagine the change will be swift... Paul M |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry about this, but you can never have enough helmet posts.Springboard for something better
Paul Murphy wrote on 14/04/2007 15:26 +0100:
If you're wanting a case to take to them in support of getting their stance changed then the answer is I bought my helmet early in 2006 after the BMA had made it's policy decision to encourage helmet use and their policy influenced my decision. At least that is a consistent position. Good luck getting a change made! If the case is really that clear-cut, I imagine the change will be swift... I doubt it - the decision was based on internal politics, not evidence so it will need a change of individuals/minds not facts. But members are working on it. -- Tony "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Giro Pneumo Lone Star Edition helmet w/ helmet pod | Robbie Brown | Marketplace | 0 | November 18th 04 04:44 PM |
published helmet research - is helmet good thing or bad? | Just zis Guy, you know? | Racing | 0 | July 30th 04 08:51 AM |
published helmet research - is helmet good thing or bad? | Just zis Guy, you know? | Social Issues | 0 | July 30th 04 08:51 AM |
Wow... 100,000 Posts | bugman | Unicycling | 5 | February 2nd 04 04:01 PM |