A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 26th 19, 08:28 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
RJH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default 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  
Old February 26th 19, 08:29 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
RJH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default 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  
Old February 26th 19, 09:10 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
RJH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 104
Default 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  
Old February 26th 19, 11:48 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
GB[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default 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  
Old February 26th 19, 11:48 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Ian Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,622
Default 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  
Old February 26th 19, 01:40 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Ian Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,622
Default 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|
|/ \|
  #38  
Old February 26th 19, 03:06 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
GB[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default 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  
Old February 26th 19, 03:14 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Ian Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,622
Default 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  
Old February 26th 19, 03:22 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
GB[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.