|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense
On 25/02/2019 19:15, Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:37:35 +0000, RJH wrote: On 24/02/2019 20:12, Ian Smith wrote: On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:59:26 +0000, RJH wrote: Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis. What if wearing a helmet makes things worse in certain circumstances? How do you determine that the circumstances that it makes worse are less prevalent or less serious than the ones where it helps? I can't think of a single likely circumstance where wearing a helmet would make a cycling injury worse. When I was last knocked off my bike I was not wearing a helmet and my head didn't hit anything, but it did pass very close by a kerbstone. Had I been wearing a helmet, there's a chance that rather than just miss it would have hit the kerbstone, possibly tangentially and wrenched my head round. Since I suffered absolutely no head or neck injury, a helmet simply could not have helped - you can't get less than no injury. There are easily foreseeable scenarios where it could have made matters worse. Also consider the consequences of risk compensation. Suppose I had some sort of lucky talisman that would protect you from all injury if you ever fell off your bike with no other vehicle around, but it made it twice as likely that you'd be hit by each car that overtook you. Would you want one of your own? Your logic (i.e. that it helps in certain circumstances, so must be good) suggests you'd want the talisman, even though it nearly doubles the chances of your death each time you go out riding (cyclists rarely die without interaction with a motor vehicle). Not sure I see your point there. Are you saying wearing a helmet makes me twice as likely to be hit by a car? No. "Suppose I had..." indicates a hypothetical. It's a thought experiment. You're supposed to think about the hypothetical scenario set out, consider what would happen if it were true, and then consider whether that conclusion should influence what is true. Cycle helmets are designed to help in the sort of impacts that arise from falling off. They aren't designed to achieve very much in a motor vehicle impact. That's why they have disclaimers on them saying they aren't suitable for motor sport. 'Falling off' and 'vehicle impact' often happen at once, I'd have thought? I have fallen off without any motor vehicle impact. I have been hit by a motor vehicle and not fallen off. If you're hit by fast-travelling motor vehicle that's likely to do more damage than the ground does when you get to it. OK - all good! So I think in summary you (and ) are saying that the risk of wearing a helmet outweighs the benefits? -- Cheers, Rob |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense
On 25/02/2019 18:20, Rob Morley wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:00:57 +0000 RJH wrote: On 25/02/2019 17:16, Rob Morley wrote: Risk compensation by drivers. It's been measured by at least one proper study. Obviously there's still the element of a driver misjudging speed and/or distance badly enough to hit you, but the reduction in error margin is real. OK, thanks - is that the heart rate variability study of 2011? it's the only one I can find - "helmet users reported higher experienced risk and cycled slower when they did not wear their helmet"? Well no, because that would be risk compensation by cyclists not drivers, and it has nothing to do with measuring passing distances. Thanks, yes, I know - but it was the only article I could find in context. Do you happen to know the one you refer to? -- Cheers, Rob |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense
On 25/02/2019 19:15, Ian Smith wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 09:37:35 +0000, RJH wrote: On 24/02/2019 20:12, Ian Smith wrote: On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:59:26 +0000, RJH wrote: Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis. What if wearing a helmet makes things worse in certain circumstances? How do you determine that the circumstances that it makes worse are less prevalent or less serious than the ones where it helps? I can't think of a single likely circumstance where wearing a helmet would make a cycling injury worse. When I was last knocked off my bike I was not wearing a helmet and my head didn't hit anything, but it did pass very close by a kerbstone. Had I been wearing a helmet, there's a chance that rather than just miss it would have hit the kerbstone, possibly tangentially and wrenched my head round. Just to follow up (I hadn't read this properly) I can see why you don't wear a helmet - you could easily have died if you had. Since I suffered absolutely no head or neck injury, a helmet simply could not have helped - you can't get less than no injury. There are easily foreseeable scenarios where it could have made matters worse. Absolutely - simply scenarios that can and do happen every day that I hadn't considered. Also consider the consequences of risk compensation. Yes. I have some issues with the deterministic aspects of psychology - but if you as others say that wearing a helmet make drivers more likely to hit you, and that opinion is informed by some expertise in the notion of risk compensation, than I take that seriously. And I will reconsider wearing a helmet. Suppose I had some sort of lucky talisman that would protect you from all injury if you ever fell off your bike with no other vehicle around, but it made it twice as likely that you'd be hit by each car that overtook you. Would you want one of your own? Your logic (i.e. that it helps in certain circumstances, so must be good) suggests you'd want the talisman, even though it nearly doubles the chances of your death each time you go out riding (cyclists rarely die without interaction with a motor vehicle). Not sure I see your point there. Are you saying wearing a helmet makes me twice as likely to be hit by a car? No. "Suppose I had..." indicates a hypothetical. It's a thought experiment. You're supposed to think about the hypothetical scenario set out, consider what would happen if it were true, and then consider whether that conclusion should influence what is true. Your hypothesis rested on 'twice as likely'. I was wondering what led you to form that hypothesis. You're supposed to test hypotheses, by the way. Thought experiments - do what you want, obviously! Cycle helmets are designed to help in the sort of impacts that arise from falling off. They aren't designed to achieve very much in a motor vehicle impact. That's why they have disclaimers on them saying they aren't suitable for motor sport. 'Falling off' and 'vehicle impact' often happen at once, I'd have thought? I have fallen off without any motor vehicle impact. I have been hit by a motor vehicle and not fallen off. If you're hit by fast-travelling motor vehicle that's likely to do more damage than the ground does when you get to it. OK, didn't know that either - quite a learning curve! I'm not a complete zealot, btw - I don't believe they should be mandatory. My choice is personal. It's just that, before this thread, I thought the benefits outweighed the risks. The kerb proximity thesis, risk compensation and drivers actively hitting cyclists because they wear helmets, and the child death statistics have made me think that I could be wrong. Cycle helmets could be death traps. And you have been incredibly fortunate to have the insights you have. -- Cheers, Rob |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense
On 26/02/2019 08:10, RJH wrote:
Absolutely - simply scenarios that can and do happen every day that I hadn't considered. All these anecdotes come from people who haven't died. They don't prove much, because the anecdotes from people who have died are curiously lacking on this newsgroup. Did anyone explain why you are twice as likely to get hit if wearing a helmet? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:28:21 +0000, RJH wrote:
OK - all good! So I think in summary you (and ) are saying that the risk of wearing a helmet outweighs the benefits? I'm not sure it's even that clear-cut. My view is that the benefits do not clearly outweigh the disbenefits (some of which are not risks, but just costs, minor aggro etc). I walk to the shops without dressing up in specific personal protective equipment - why should I not cycle to the same shops without doing so? Actually the official government statistics suggest I'm more likely to be killed walking there and back than cycling there and back. The benefits are so small and unclear (and might even be a net increase in risk) that even the small aggravation means helmets are not worthwhile for utility transport, is my opinion. For what it's worth, when I rode off-road competitively (but just competitive-with-my-mates) and fell off fairly often (if you don't, you're not trying hard enough) I did wear a helmet. It didn't protect me from injury - I have scarring on my back from sliding down a flinty track at speed the wrong way up, and I did some damage to my thumb once requiring some hospital attention, but I never hit my head. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:48:13 +0000, GB wrote:
Did anyone explain why you are twice as likely to get hit if wearing a helmet? No such claim was made. You are misrepresenting (at best) what was said. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense
On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 7:28:24 AM UTC, RJH wrote:
OK - all good! So I think in summary you (and ) are saying that the risk of wearing a helmet outweighs the benefits? I don't really have an opinion on cycle hats other than I don't see what use they are to me. I have always cycled without one as I have walked and driven without them either. If you look at this chart, you would always use them whilst in a car as well. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0VYTNzWsAAjkdA.jpg |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense
On 26/02/2019 12:40, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:48:13 +0000, GB wrote: Did anyone explain why you are twice as likely to get hit if wearing a helmet? No such claim was made. You are misrepresenting (at best) what was said. Misunderstanding, please! I'm far too stupid and honest to misrepresent. BTW, can you explain what this means, as apparently I'm misrepresenting it: "Suppose I had some sort of lucky talisman that would protect you from all injury if you ever fell off your bike with no other vehicle around, but it made it twice as likely that you'd be hit by each car that overtook you. Would you want one of your own? Your logic (i.e. that it helps in certain circumstances, so must be good) suggests you'd want the talisman, even though it nearly doubles the chances of your death each time you go out riding (cyclists rarely die without interaction with a motor vehicle). " regards, Ian SMith |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:06:16 +0000, GB wrote:
On 26/02/2019 12:40, Ian Smith wrote: On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:48:13 +0000, GB wrote: Did anyone explain why you are twice as likely to get hit if wearing a helmet? No such claim was made. You are misrepresenting (at best) what was said. Misunderstanding, please! I'm far too stupid and honest to misrepresent. BTW, can you explain what this means, as apparently I'm misrepresenting it: "Suppose I had some sort of lucky talisman that would protect you from all injury if you ever fell off your bike with no other vehicle around, but it made it twice as likely that you'd be hit by each car that overtook you. Would you want one of your own? Your logic (i.e. that it helps in certain circumstances, so must be good) suggests you'd want the talisman, even though it nearly doubles the chances of your death each time you go out riding (cyclists rarely die without interaction with a motor vehicle). " If you read "Suppose I had some sort of lucky talisman that ... made it twice as likely that you'd be hit by each car that overtook you." as a statement saying "Wearing a cycle helmet will make it twice as likely that each car will hit you", you are either well beyond my ability to help you, or not acting honestly, in good faith. It doesn't much matter which, because in either case there's nothing more I can do. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense
On 26/02/2019 14:14, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 14:06:16 +0000, GB wrote: On 26/02/2019 12:40, Ian Smith wrote: On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 10:48:13 +0000, GB wrote: Did anyone explain why you are twice as likely to get hit if wearing a helmet? No such claim was made. You are misrepresenting (at best) what was said. Misunderstanding, please! I'm far too stupid and honest to misrepresent. BTW, can you explain what this means, as apparently I'm misrepresenting it: "Suppose I had some sort of lucky talisman that would protect you from all injury if you ever fell off your bike with no other vehicle around, but it made it twice as likely that you'd be hit by each car that overtook you. Would you want one of your own? Your logic (i.e. that it helps in certain circumstances, so must be good) suggests you'd want the talisman, even though it nearly doubles the chances of your death each time you go out riding (cyclists rarely die without interaction with a motor vehicle). " If you read "Suppose I had some sort of lucky talisman that ... made it twice as likely that you'd be hit by each car that overtook you." as a statement saying "Wearing a cycle helmet will make it twice as likely that each car will hit you", you are either well beyond my ability to help you, or not acting honestly, in good faith. It doesn't much matter which, because in either case there's nothing more I can do. That's a bloody good put-down, but it doesn't answer the question. The above is clearly meant as a statement that wearing a helmet increases your accident frequency. Do you really disagree that that is what was said? regards, Ian SMith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense. Especially after a few drinks. | Mrcheerful | UK | 5 | October 28th 13 02:56 PM |
Always wear a helmet, she knew it made sense | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 0 | October 24th 11 12:56 PM |
It only makes sense! | Fred2 | UK | 73 | April 28th 11 03:33 AM |
Now it Makes Sense | Davey Crockett | Racing | 0 | June 17th 07 10:01 AM |
This Makes To Much Sense | Art Deco | Mountain Biking | 0 | January 27th 05 04:50 PM |