Cycle Helmet

[Silver Fox]

Similarly if, in your anecdote, the helmet had saved the upper part of your head from any injury - what do you think the most you would have suffered if you had not worn it? A bruise, a cut - but penetration or severe depression of the skull?

I've absolutely no idea Stuart, I'm just glad that I was wearing one as it certainly absorbed a considerable amount of the impact before my face broke my fall.

As with most things in life we have a choice, it's my choice to wear a helmet ( in my experience very few mtb'ers don't).

Sometimes though we have to rely on the benefit of hindsight to know if the choice we made was the right one, for me it was. If others prefer not to wear a helmet then that's entirely up to them.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Missed this one starting, can anyone give me an update as to what stage we're at to save me wading through it all?

 

[Red Light]

Missed this one starting, can anyone give me an update as to what stage we're at to save me wading through it all?

Passed the popcorn but not yet ready for the melon.

 

[ufkacbln]

Stop, think of something unsexy.. no premature Melonation

 

[ufkacbln]

I went over the bars recently and face planted. I got a fat lip and a few cuts and grazes but the lip of my helmet landed first. It saved me from splitting my forehead open.

I've always wore a cycle helmet and will continue to do so. It's like any insurance, you hope you never have to use it but it's very useful to have when you need it.

To those who take the piss I say I'd rather wear a cycle helmet and be laughed at than mourned over,

Actually it reinforces another aspect of the debate. The British Dental Association is quite clear that the present helmet design is inadequate and that they should have a role in promoting facial protection in the design of helmets.

Had you been wearing a full face helmet, it is arguable that you would have prevented the injuries you did receive

 

[StuartG]

There is but there is a bigger small chance that it will cause a death based on the results of Rodger's US study of 8 million cycle accidents which showed helmet wearers were at increased risk of being killed.

Have you actually read it? An impressive collection of anecdotes and other people's reporting. But a serious statistical analysis? It doesn't even pretend to be - so draw information carefully even if it superficially appears to support your case. It doesn't prove it.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Have you actually read it? An impressive collection of anecdotes and other people's reporting. But a serious statistical analysis? It doesn't even pretend to be - so draw information carefully even if it superficially appears to support your case. It doesn't prove it.

The rules of debating serious topics on the Internet:

1. I post, therefore I am right.

2. You post, therefore you are wrong.

3. If I provide a link to a data source I am even righter than I was previously.

4. Data may only be interpreted in a way that supports and vindicates my opinion. Any other reading is false.

5. If you base your argument on anecdote, common sense or your own (unpublished) observations, it is invalid and so are you.

On the basis of the above, I am wrong. But if I am wrong, then the above must also be wrong... so I'm right.

You are wrong. Or the other bloke. I'm really not sure. Anyway, we really need to drill down a little and solve this one.

If anyone has the correct answer, I think they should let me know (with appropriate links to their data source).

 

[redcard]

That it doesn't work?

​

The monkeys produced five pages of text, mainly composed of the letter S, but failed to type anything close to a word of English, broke the computer and used the keyboard as a lavatory. ​

Does work.

 

[StuartG]

Have you actually read it? Your comments would seem to indicate not.

Rodgers was a metanalysis, which was reviewed and published in a peer reviewed journal. Frankly, I'd give more weight to that process than the opinion of a couple of posters on a forum...

Yes I did read it. Did you really read what I wrote? It is not, as you admit, a statistical analysis of the raw data, nor to be honest, a critical analysis of the methods used by others. It is an interesting collection of reported statistics. But when we get '16 people thought their helmets saved them' ( I paraphrase) that bit is worth no more than this thread.

I am no way trying to discredit what is an important contribution - but how its numbers can be taken out of context to prove something they don't. And then claim authority through use of the name.

 

[benb]

Yes I did read it. Did you really read what I wrote? It is not, as you admit, a statistical analysis of the raw data, nor to be honest, a critical analysis of the methods used by others. It is an interesting collection of reported statistics. But when we get '16 people thought their helmets saved them' ( I paraphrase) that bit is worth no more than this thread.

I am no way trying to discredit what is an important contribution - but how its numbers can be taken out of context to prove something they don't. And then claim authority through use of the name.

Do you even know what a meta-analysis is?

 

[StuartG]

Do you even know what a meta-analysis is?

Yes. It's my job. Might I just remind folks my sole point is that this study does not prove the usefulness of helmets or otherwise. To quote the report (my emphasis):

Since helmets are intended to reduce the likelihood of head injury, EP used injury
survey data to examine the safety effects of helmet use by estimating the conditional probability
of head injury given that a helmet was worn. As described in Part III, the results of this
analysis were inconclusive, probably because the sample of helmet users was small (only about
12 percent of the injured riders were wearing a helmet at the time of accident), and possibly
because no information was available on riders who avoided injuries or whose injuries were
less severe because they were wearing helmets.

And that is it. Do correct me if i'm wrong.

That's why I'm firmly on the fence on this issue. Being shot at by people who cherry pick statistics and anecdotes is par for the course. And I repeat again that this is the position of many other mainstream statisticians. The BBC R4 programme 'More or Less' did a rather nice overview of the question if you can find it. I'll leave you to see whether that qualified as a meta-analysis or not.

 

[benb]

Yes. It's my job. ...

Thanks for clarifying. Are you sure that paper you quoted from is the same one, as it doesn't seem to contain the quoted conclusion that "There is no evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates. The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use"

PS - sorry for my unnecessarily sarcastic post about meta-analysis.

 

[StuartG]

Taken from page 13 of the US Product Safety Commission GB Rodgers report: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/344.pdf

 

[StuartG]

"There is no evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates. The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use".

Actually that is not incompatible with the inconclusive conclusion I quoted. The report does suggest that the wearing of helmets is correlated with perceived danger (busy roads/mountain tracks). Hence if this danger is real then helmeted cyclists will be over represented in the fatality rates - not because of the helmet but where they cycled.

That's the danger of statistics. It is very easy to confound one variable with another. That's why the only decent statistician is a complete skeptic. Complete skeptics can be a pain in the *rse for anyone wanting an easy answer ... there isn't one on helmets. Which is why the best professional advice I can give is toss a penny

 

[Theseus]

Which is why the best professional advice I can give is toss a penny

Can a helmet prevent a tossed penny from injuring you?