The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[SavageHoutkop]

Ah damn I took you for being one of 'em lycra clad wannabes' never mind i'll put you down as a hair in the wind liberal.

Better, although I can't ride with my 'hair in the wind' unfortunately, that'd be a recipe for disaster. Has to be tied up somehow or disaster would ensue.

 

[mjr]

I will let you know as updates arrive. I leave complaining about the other dodgy claims to other people.

ASA reply to say it's been passed "to a colleague for further assessment. They will respond shortly with more information."

The wheels of truthiness grind slowly... watch this thread for further updates.

 

[mjr]

there's an alternative analysis. It's quite possible that the helmet did help a lot of those who so claimed, if there are a balancing number of wearers whose injuries were worsened. Or a variant on that - significantly more helmet-wearers hit their heads than would have been the case without. Any of the 3 scenarious are consitent with the evdence. The bigger head will be hit moee is obviously true - but the other two may be true as well, but who knows what the proportions are

The first scenario can't explain it because the pre-helmet numbers weren't big enough and there doesn't seem to have been a corresponding surge in those head-injured to balance the proportion who testify to their salvation.

That last scenario seems like pretty much the scenario I'm suggesting we're in: if helmet-wearers hit their heads when they wouldn't have without, then we get lots of people testifying to their salvation, but overall they weren't helped by helmet-wearing even if it provided impact protection.

It feels like it has some similarities to handing out armour that can explode but you hope the rest of the armour will offer more than sufficient blast protection despite a lack of evidence of that.

 

[Profpointy]

The first scenario can't explain it because the pre-helmet numbers weren't big enough and there doesn't seem to have been a corresponding surge in those head-injured to balance the proportion who testify to their salvation.

That last scenario seems like pretty much the scenario I'm suggesting we're in: if helmet-wearers hit their heads when they wouldn't have without, then we get lots of people testifying to their salvation, but overall they weren't helped by helmet-wearing even if it provided impact protection.

It feels like it has some similarities to handing out armour that can explode but you hope the rest of the armour will offer more than sufficient blast protection despite a lack of evidence of that.

I think you may be right. My first alternative doesn't really stack up

 

[martint235]

Apropos to nothing really but the organisation in charge of boxing has decided that headgear won't be worn at the Rio Olympics and the AIBA president believes that this will result in fewer concussions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/35701948

 

[SavageHoutkop]

Interesting. "AIBA provided medical and technical data that showed the number of concussions is lower without headgear."
Behaviour changes if wearing helmet?

 

[martint235]

Interesting. "AIBA provided medical and technical data that showed the number of concussions is lower without headgear."
Behaviour changes if wearing helmet?

Possibly.

At least they've gone to the trouble of gathering data.

 

[benb]

Apropos to nothing really but the organisation in charge of boxing has decided that headgear won't be worn at the Rio Olympics and the AIBA president believes that this will result in fewer concussions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/35701948

If they were serious about wanting to reduce concussion, they'd ditch the gloves.

 

[CaadX]

The debate seems to of vaporized. Wonder if you regard it as a victory or a defeat, not engaging the imagined opposition would seem to be failure to me.
A few diehards and some poor unwitting souls stumbling in by mistake does not really represent the opposition does it ? Wonder why this is so.

Update on the wife's helmet's success/failure. It went back to the shop they could not offer any coherent opinion so it has gone back to Giro I will keep you updated ,that's if you are interested ?

Upshot is she has bought one exactly the same as she feels it has done its job. I'm yet to be convinced however will keep an open mind. What I am not happy about is, if she had listened to me in the first place I wouldn't have to fork out for another one.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Update on the wife's helmet's success/failure. It went back to the shop they could not offer any coherent opinion so it has gone back to Giro I will keep you updated ,that's if you are interested ?

.

I think it is of interest what Giro have to say, please keep us posted.

I think the debate will continue as long as there are people/organisations compelling (by fear) people to wear helmets when there is no evidence of their efficacy and plenty good reasons why we're better off without them.
Hope Mrs CaadX is back on her bike.

 

[Mugshot]

Upshot is she has bought one exactly the same as she feels it has done its job. I'm yet to be convinced however will keep an open mind.

You appear to have changed your mind somewhat and your certainly your approach;

Wifey off black ice today giro split and cracked saved her life ! I'm happy who gives a stuff about you lot lol

You haven't actually taken the time to read through the thread by any chance have you?

 

[CaadX]

You appear to have changed your mind somewhat and your certainly your approach;

You haven't actually taken the time to read through the thread by any chance have you?

I try to keep an open mind on everything you should try it sometime.

How do you come to the second conclusion or was it just a throw away remark ? Perhaps the irony didn't come across Eh ?

 

[CaadX]

After 170 pages, what is there to debate? Unless and until someone comes up with something new, some compelling evidence about the issue, the debate is done.

There was no debate to start with ! Wearing a helmet is not an issue with the fraternity you lost before you began ! they are not engaging don't you get it ?

 

[martint235]

There was no debate to start with ! Wearing a helmet is not an issue with the fraternity you lost before you began ! they are not engaging don't you get it ?

Huh??? I think you'll find that those of us who don't wear helmets tend to go about our lives happily. We only engage when the pro-helmet fraternity post the usual "my helmet saved my life" post. Usually, it must be admitted, with a sense of deja vu and no real hope of receiving any meaningful debate or evidence to support the claim.

 

[CaadX]

I think it is of interest what Giro have to say, please keep us posted.

I think the debate will continue as long as there are people/organisations compelling (by fear) people to wear helmets when there is no evidence of their efficacy and plenty good reasons why we're better off without them.
Hope Mrs CaadX is back on her bike.

I will.

Interesting you think that way, Indeed large organisations are leading the way , however I believe you are up against something far more powerful and in a large part impossible to fight, hence the Bowie line earlier. Cycling is constantly evolving and developing. Some people will be left behind or sidelined. Whether or not helmets do anything is irrelevant, all the matters is the Pros wear them and the vast majority want to look like the pros even if they cant ride like them.