BBC helmets bull**** again

Alex Potter wrote:

Nick wrote:

And many who don't wear helmets do suspect that helmets are effective
they just don't like wearing them.

Of course. Perhaps many of the helmet-less group believe that their
accident risk is so slight as to be almost negligible.

I mean most of us believe condoms provide health safety advantages but
still prefer not to wear one.

Indeed. It's a matter of balancing risk against likely benefit. If the
risk is small, why guard against it?

You could apply that to drink-driving.

After all, even before the breathalyser, only a tiny proportion of those
driving after drinking would have an accident of any sort, and many of the
accidents would not cause injury.

The risk was small, but Parliament decided to guard against it. Was
Parliament wrong to do that?

"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
Some interesting parallels from a US expert on ski safety where helmet use
in the US has risen from 7 to 40% over a decade with no decrease in skier
deaths:

http://www.lidsonkids.org/ski-or-sno...earing-one.asp

including

"For non-helmeted skiers, only 23 percent of all potentially serious head
injuries are more serious than a mild concussion. For helmeted skiers, 67
percent of their potentially serious head injuries are more severe than a
mild concussion."


Errm perhaps becuse the helmeted skiers do not report for treatment for the
many minor bumps the helmetprotectd them from?


"We have also found that helmeted skiers ski faster than non-helmeted
skiers, this is true for our control group, it is true for all injuries,
and it is true for those skiers sustaining potentially serious head
injuries."


errm: perhaps skiers who ski fast are more likely to choose to wear a
helmet?



ie you quotes add zilch to the discussion

pk

On Aug 28, 2:46*pm, "pk" wrote:
"Tony Raven" wrote in message

...

Some interesting parallels from a US expert on ski safety where helmet use
in the US has risen from 7 to 40% over a decade with no decrease in skier
deaths:

http://www.lidsonkids.org/ski-or-sno...not-wearing-on...

including

"For non-helmeted skiers, only 23 percent of all potentially serious head
injuries are more serious than a mild concussion. For helmeted skiers, 67
percent of their potentially serious head injuries are more severe than a
mild concussion."

Errm perhaps becuse the helmeted skiers do not report for treatment for the
many minor bumps the helmetprotectd them from?

Implausible. Concussion is not something people will usually ignore,
and your assumption is that those who choose to wear helmets are more
likely to seek treatment for minor injuries than those who don't,
which I doubt.
--
Guy

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Aug 28, 2:46 pm, "pk" wrote:
"Tony Raven" wrote in message

...

Some interesting parallels from a US expert on ski safety where helmet
use
in the US has risen from 7 to 40% over a decade with no decrease in
skier
deaths:

http://www.lidsonkids.org/ski-or-sno...not-wearing-on...

including

"For non-helmeted skiers, only 23 percent of all potentially serious
head
injuries are more serious than a mild concussion. For helmeted skiers,
67
percent of their potentially serious head injuries are more severe than
a
mild concussion."

Errm perhaps becuse the helmeted skiers do not report for treatment for
the
many minor bumps the helmetprotectd them from?

Implausible. Concussion is not something people will usually ignore,
and your assumption is that those who choose to wear helmets are more
likely to seek treatment for minor injuries than those who don't,
which I doubt.
--
Guy



no my assumption is that the helmets protect form incidents which would have
resulted in minor concussion and the skier simply skiis on.

Thus the only reports are those from more significant events from which the
helmet provides little protection. ie a decrease in total number of reports
and increase in proportion of serious injuries

pk

On Aug 28, 5:14*pm, "pk" wrote:

no my assumption is that the helmets protect form incidents which would have
resulted in minor concussion and the skier simply skiis on.

You seem to me to be multiplying hypotheses. You are suggesting that
high-risk skiers wear helmets which prevent all but the most serious
injuries, they don't migrate serious injuries to less-serious injuries
they just make the less serious vanish altogether. That is a scenario
I would want some evidence to support, especially given the extensive
evidence of risk compensation.
--
Guy

"Alex Potter" wrote

Indeed. It's a matter of balancing risk against likely benefit. If the
risk is small, why guard against it?

And then there are some that wear a helmet on a bike but not in a car even
though personal risk*exposure may be higher in the latter. (I'm thinking of
Derek C as a particular example.)

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 08:50:53 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

snip


Implausible. Concussion is not something people will usually ignore,
and your assumption is that those who choose to wear helmets are more
likely to seek treatment for minor injuries than those who don't,
which I doubt.



Talking of concussion - how is yours?

Have you confidence to ride your bike back yet? Is it true that you
have been told that you *must* wear a cycle helmet at all times whilst
cycling?

Are you following that diktat - I think we should be told.


(How's the kill-file?)
--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:48:29 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Aug 28, 5:14*pm, "pk" wrote:



snip


I would want some evidence to support, especially given the extensive
evidence of risk compensation.

Ho, ho ho, tell us all about "risk compensation" in cycling and cycle
helmets - why don't you.

Can you remember the last time your tried.


The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation refereed to a particular piece
of research and they summarised:

"First empirical evidence of risk compensation when cycling. Injured
children who had worn helmets rode faster and suffered more damage to
their bikes."

Porky Chapman claimed: "For example, in general, children using PE
such as helmets report going faster and more often reported damage to
their bike" and on cycle helmets: "it's a dominant theme of the
paper."


Well, well well - what a surprise - not only were the BHRF lying - but
also were you.

The paper was categorically NOT research in to Risk Compensation.

The "evidence" consisted of NINE children saying that they rode faster
when wearing a helmet.

The authors concluded : "The main limitation of our study is the small
sample. Consequently, formal statistical analysis was not justified,
AND NO FIRM CONCLUSIONS COULD BE DRAWN my capitals


Well it didn't stop Porky and the BHRF jumping to firm conclusions.


Over to you Porky - please try and explain your position on that
paper. (Have you actually read it?)
--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

burtthebike wrote:
Some time ago, I requested the BBC R4 prog "More or Less" to examine
the case for cycle helmets, as they had done some very significant
demolition jobs on other misuses of statistics.

Silly me! This is the BBC, which appears to have taken a policy
decision to promote cycle helmets, but I'd be surprised if they would
admit it. The prog is supposed to be a "Magazine show investigating
the ways we use numbers, statistics and measurements." except in the
case of cycle helmets apparently.

So, lets get this straight. You invited the BBC, probably the worlds most
highly respected independent media, to research an issue on which you hold
preconcieved ideas.

They did exactly what you asked, but rather inconveniently didn't support
your preconcieved ideas - therfore they are biased?

What a complete & utter ****ing **** you are.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

Alex Potter wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:30:46 +0100, pk wrote:

"burtthebike" wrote in message
news:31c14b20-a77c-4539-b7e3-
...
. No-one was
interviewed who was against helmets.

Wot!

I am forever told on here that no one is against helmets!

Shock, horror! You mean there are such people!

pk

I'm sure there are, but many of us who don't wear helmets are not so
much anti-helmet as anti-compulsion, and remain unconvinced of their
effectiveness at preventing serious injury.

Anti compulsion sums it up. Like bing 'compelled' to obey traffic laws or
pay your way.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.