Ben Goldacre - Helmet 'Bad Science'

[Linford]

Hence the lack of any claims from the manufacturers about the protection offered. They just rely on people making claims for them based on emotional judgements or the reasoning of Alf Garnet.

And so it returns to my assertion that there needs to be standards set which comply with written law and a cycle lid shouldn't be sold unless it has been tested to it.
In the case of motorbike lids, it is the ACU Gold standard, or ECE 22.05.

 

[User482]

I don't really get your POV either.

That's because I haven't given it. For reasons unknown, you seem to be making inferences from the article that simply aren't there.

 

[Linford]

That's because I haven't given it. For reasons unknown, you seem to be making inferences from the article that simply aren't there.

That is your POV.I've already quoted from the article, If you can't see it, then I can 'really help you any more.

 

[benb]

so your risk analysis consists of 'yup, nobody has run me over yet on this route so i'll keep chancing it'

Simple question...have you personally ever witnessed an accident or been involved in one where there has been a serious injury from vehicles moving at speed ?

What's that got to do with helmets?

 

[Linford]

But they are, just to an inadequate one.

So we agree on this point...if cycle lids performed to a minimum standard which were in the region of the motorcycle specs, then you wouldn't have an issue with legislation ?

 

[Linford]

What's that got to do with helmets?

I have personal experience of low and high speed accidents where the helmets have sustained extensive damage...I'm asking if he has too. It isn't unreasonable to ask as they saved a substantial injury in these instances.

 

[User482]

That is your POV.I've already quoted from the article, If you can't see it, then I can 'really help you any more.

Yes, you provided a quote that didn't support your inference. It's quite clear that you're not going to let objective analysis trouble your beliefs, so I'll leave it there.

 

[Profpointy]

I have personal experience of low and high speed accidents where the helmets have sustained extensive damage...I'm asking if he has too. It isn't unreasonable to ask as they saved a substantial injury in these instances.

That's all fine and dandy, but nevertheless when looking at the numbers, they don't seem to help on average. Perhaps they make other accidents worse, perhaps they make accidents more likely - and even in the examples you've mentioned, perhaps turned a near miss into a hit - who knows? The fact remains ther's no solid evidence at all that they help the population as a whole. I make my decision based on the odds overall - isn't it silly to do otherwise

 

[Linford]

That's all fine and dandy, but nevertheless when looking at the numbers, they don't seem to help on average. Perhaps they make other accidents worse, perhaps they make accidents more likely - and even in the examples you've mentioned, perhaps turned a near miss into a hit - who knows? The fact remains ther's no solid evidence at all that they help the population as a whole. I make my decision based on the odds overall - isn't it silly to do otherwise

There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics.
WHat you are really saying is that because you are statistically less likely to have an accident on a cycle than say for instance 'walking', then that is justification for just not bothering with any level of protection.
Why not do away with lights at night...or even brakes on your own bike...hey statistically you won't be any more likely to hitanything or get ru over when looking at the big picture ?

 

[Profpointy]

There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics.
WHat you are really saying is that because you are statistically less likely to have an accident on a cycle than say for instance 'walking', then that is justification for just not bothering with any level of protection.
Why not do away with lights at night...or even brakes on your own bike...hey statistically you won't be any more likely to hitanything or get ru over when looking at the big picture ?

Not what i'm saying at all.

But are you saying that statistics simply dont mean anything at all ? Really ?
Or just some statisitcs are lies - presumably helmet accident ones?

 

[User482]

Not what i'm saying at all.

But are you saying that statistics simply dont mean anything at all ? Really ?
Or just some statisitcs are lies - presumably helmet accident ones?

Statistics that contradict prejudices = lies.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Aus is a tiny market. The country has a population less than half the UK despite being a huge place.

In 2011 Australia recorded 1,989,562 cyclists aged over 9 who rode daily, every one requiring a helmet to comply with the local laws. That's a huge captive market for helmet manufacturers to exploit, yet the helmets available to Aussies are no better, in terms of minimum standards, than those available to us. Can you explain that?

GC

 

[MontyVeda]

a helmet wearing friend of mine came out with the old "I think you're an idiot of you don't wear a helmet"... I agreed with him, before telling him that i also wrap my body and limbs in several layers of cotton wool and bubble wrap, held in place with hi-viz gaffer tape... "And if you don't do that, you're also an idiot." It seemed to shut him up.

 

[benb]

I have personal experience of low and high speed accidents where the helmets have sustained extensive damage...I'm asking if he has too. It isn't unreasonable to ask as they saved a substantial injury in these instances.

Whether a helmet sustained damage tells us almost nothing about whether it protected its wearer from any kind of head injury, let alone protected against a serious head injury.
It tells us even less about whether wearing a helmet offers significant protection against head injuries overall.

 

[booze and cake]

I see now why Linf has a marmite jar as an avatar