Ben Goldacre - Helmet 'Bad Science'

[Linford]

This didn't start out as the usual 'should people wear helmets or not' debate though. It was based on an interesting article about why people feel the need to have those debates.

Of course, as usual, the debate got derailed, and the derailleur managed yet again to post a photo of a person on a motorbike.

If you can't see why the parallel was drawn, can't help you TMN

 

[Linford]

We can all see why you drew the parallel. It is its relevance, or rather the lack thereof, that you don't seem to see.

1) Q - What is the difference between falling off at 30mph on a cycle to falling off at 30mph on a motorcycle ?

2) Q - have you got or had any experience in both modes to give me an informed answer to 1 ?

 

[Fab Foodie]

That is another irrelevant sidestep Linf. This is not about me. It is about why it is that people are happy to fall in with and promote a myth that cycling is dangerous but consider driving safe.

Maybe this will help .... a great article on the risks (or lack) of cycling in London ....

http://www.gicentre.net/blog/2013/11/24/risk-cycling-and-denominator-neglect

 

[Fab Foodie]

1) Q - What is the difference between falling off at 30mph on a cycle to falling off at 30mph on a motorcycle ?

The difference is that one is a very rare event, the other not .... even if the outcome is the same.

 

[snorri]

1) Q - What is the difference between falling off at 30mph on a cycle to falling off at 30mph on a motorcycle ?

Can't imagine what our resident troll is up to with this question.

Answer. The mode of transport?

Few cyclists go as fast as 30mph and few motor cyclists go as slow a s 30mph

 

[Linford]

Can't imagine what our resident troll is up to with this question.

Answer. The mode of transport?

Few cyclists go as fast as 30mph and few motor cyclists go as slow a s 30mph

A troll post if ever I saw one...You are making assumptions on the behaviour of the other mode.

Every weekend ride I do has me clocking well over 30mph on my cycle on the downhill stretch

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2835243, member: 45"]To assess risk one needs to examine the likelihood and the impact.

The likelihood of falling off a motorcycle is much higher than the likelihood of falling off a bicycle at 30mph.[/quote]

Because cyclists rarely attain this speed or that the handling of a motorcycle is less stable than a cycle ?

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2835255, member: 45"]The amount of time that motorcyclists spend at 30mph compared to cyclists is a big consideration.[/quote]

My Giant is considerably more twitchy than my motorcycle though

 

[StuartG]

1) Q - What is the difference between falling off at 30mph on a cycle to falling off at 30mph on a motorcycle ?

2) Q - have you got or had any experience in both modes to give me an informed answer to 1 ?

I have done both. On one occasion no damage was done to my helmet, and on the other no helmet was being worn. Sadly my anecdotes are no more useful than yours. Next?

 

[Linford]

I have done both. On one occasion no damage was done to my helmet, and on the other no helmet was being worn. Sadly my anecdotes are no more useful than yours. Next?

Your helmet didn't have a single mark on it...not even a graze ? ?

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2835272, member: 45"]I'm sure Giant twitchiness factors in somewhere if you want to do a proper risk assessment on the efficacy of cycle helmets. The RA won't compare with motorcycling though as that's completely irrelevant.[/quote]

We can perhaps revisit your opinion a couple of years after you get your scooter ?

 

[snorri]

A troll post if ever I saw one...You are making assumptions on the behaviour of the other mode.

Every weekend ride I do has me clocking well over 30mph on my cycle on the downhill stretch

I stand by my claim that a only a small proportion of cyclists ever reach 30 mph.
Why must you keep going over the same old ground Linf? If the issues you raise were coming from a newbie to the forum they would be understandable, but you have been on this forum longer than many and are well versed in the likely replies to your posts.

 

[StuartG]

Your helmet didn't have a single mark on it...not even a graze ? ?

No - it did not make contact with the road. My head also didn't make contact with the road in the other incident. Other parts did and hurt for months.

Given that 30 mph is low for a motorbike and high for a cyclist (I was thundering down College Road, Crystal Palace at the time) the difference is that the most likely impact speed for a cyclist is way, way less than a motorcyclist. This with other factors means that the same person applying the similar models to risks incurred in cycling and motorcycling would come out with very different answers. In my case they straddle the acceptable risk threshold. I take it from srw that he comes to a not dissimilar conclusion.

Given that srw is a professional in this field and Ben and myself have a professional background to evaluate risk - I'm really wondering why you find informed advice so difficult to accept. Doctors are not always right but I think I prefer to take their collective advice on medicine and surgical actions that could impact my life than pander to my own prejudices. But then I wouldn't trust their stats either (Ben being an honourable exception, he actually understands the subject unlike your good self).

 

[Linford]

No - it did not make contact with the road. My head also didn't make contact with the road in the other incident. Other parts did and hurt for months.

Given that 30 mph is low for a motorbike and high for a cyclist (I was thundering down College Road, Crystal Palace at the time) the difference is that the most likely impact speed for a cyclist is way, way less than a motorcyclist. This with other factors means that the same person applying the similar models to risks incurred in cycling and motorcycling would come out with very different answers. In my case they straddle the acceptable risk threshold. I take it from srw that he comes to a not dissimilar conclusion.

Given that srw is a professional in this field and Ben and myself have a professional background to evaluate risk - I'm really wondering why you find informed advice so difficult to accept. Doctors are not always right but I think I prefer to take their collective advice on medicine and surgical actions that could impact my life than pander to my own prejudices. But then I wouldn't trust their stats either (Ben being an honourable exception, he actually understands the subject unlike your good self).

You mean I must take the advice of people who work in an industry where they tell all of their customers to never admit liability...even when they cannot deny it ?
The insurance 'business' is absolutely full of sharp operators who are all intent on suing each other and blaming everybody else for the climate they control....just saying

 

[StuartG]

You mean I must take the advice of people who work in an industry where they tell all of their customers to never admit liability...even when they cannot deny it ?
The insurance 'business' is absolutely full of sharp operators who are all intent on suing each other and blaming everybody else for the climate they control....just saying

Ben and myself do not work in insurance. SRW is not customer facing and is it not the lawyers not risk analysts we need to blame for that?
So please don't seek to derail the discussion with another irrelevant and prejudicial point.