Detention Lines: I will wear a helmet.

[ufkacbln]

Absolutely. It isn't just the effectiveness of helmets at reducing injury in individual accidents that counts, we also have to assess the effectiveness of promotion and compulsion when applied to large populations. It is perfectly possible both for helmets to offer a real benefit in certain types of accident (which is why I usually wear one) and for compulsion to be ineffective and/or counter-productive at the population level (which is why I'm opposed to compulsion).

These studies have further flaws as well....

The "helmet compulsion" was part of a whole raft of safety measures including stamping down on speeding, drink driving, unlicansed vehices and drivers, prro driving standards and others.

None of this is taklemn into account, so any decrease in injury or deathis simply pigeon holed to helmet wearing...... Any of the above, or the combination should have reduced the risk of accidents and consequently the decrease in injury or deaths.

Taking this into account,the reductions claimed are even less imprssive!

 

[Wolf04]

It's impossible to derive any conclusion from a single real life accident, unless you've got the whole thing mapped out. This is why I said earlier that the only way to go is a kind of cycling Euro NCAP procedure.

Agree 100% if helmets are going to be worn as protective clothing then they should have effective testing and certification.

 

[Wolf04]

Well yes but im saying sometimes you can say something saved your life,for example if a piece of say slate was embedded in your helmet like a knife and just missed your scalp,could you not conclude that the helmet did indeed save you?Unlikely i know,but you get the idea?

Yes I follow the logic.

 

[Riding in Circles]

Better still, could we just agree to save this whole thread and repost it every few months?

Sounds like a most excellent idea sir!

 

[BentMikey]

It's impossible to derive any conclusion from a single real life accident, unless you've got the whole thing mapped out. This is why I said earlier that the only way to go is a kind of cycling Euro NCAP procedure.

That's not quite true - we have Ravenbait, formerly of this forum, who received a neck injury because of her helmet.

 

[BentMikey]

It would've been helpful if you'd stated up front that you were against helmet wearing for many reasons and not just on the grounds that the evidence is not convincing that they are actually effective against injury.

I suspect also, that like me, you don't like being told what to do but of course I can't just say I don't like being told what to do, I generally have to find good reason not to do something I'm told to do.

Not really - I hate reading long and rambling posts, so it's nicer to post one solid point at a time in response to a particular poster. Don't attribute the lack of flow to me, but rather to the many and varied points brought up on a topic like this by many different people.

 

[Crackle]

That's not quite true - we have Ravenbait, formerly of this forum, who received a neck injury because of her helmet.

So this carries more weight than my fractured skull because I wasn't wearing a helmet. Obviously I haven't said that because I'm slightly more objective than that but it happened and I've worn a helmet ever since - draw your own conlusions.

Not really - I hate reading long and rambling posts, so it's nicer to post one solid point at a time in response to a particular poster. Don't attribute the lack of flow to me, but rather to the many and varied points brought up on a topic like this by many different people.

I think we've both made our points so I have nothing else to add to this other than what I've already said.

 

[BentMikey]

Do you not see the difference between the two examples? It's one thing wondering whether or not a helmet might have prevented your injury, and quite another when you received an injury because of a helmet. The first is theory, the second is an actual instance of harm.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

[quote name='swee'pea99']

Except that simply wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion. The govt. has said so in the past.

I really don't want to get into the argument, but just two things on that: 1) Just 'cos the Govt says it, don't make it true, and 2) It isn't
I really don't want to get into the argument, but just two things on that: 1) Just 'cos the Govt says it, don't make it true, and 2) It isn't[/QUOTE]

Halleluyah - I finally persuaded Mike to give me some reasoning, which it turns out is as illogical as the original claim - and someone else recognises it as such. Thanks, swee'pea...

Since when do we let the government decide for us what are the terms of discussion? Surely that's the whole point of having cycling advocacy and campaigning organisations, and of standing up for our rights - so that they are not allowed to do so?

Anyway, the discussion seems to be over. Once again everyone and the evidence generally agrees that compulsion is bad and pretty much everythig else is a matter of interpretation or lacks substantive evidence, except for a tiny number of extremists on either end.

 

[4F]

Anyway, the discussion seems to be over. Once again everyone and the evidence generally agrees that compulsion is bad and pretty much everythig else is a matter of interpretation or lacks substantive evidence, except for a tiny number of extremists on either end.

Yep till the next time

 

[Crackle]

Do you not see the difference between the two examples? It's one thing wondering whether or not a helmet might have prevented your injury, and quite another when you received an injury because of a helmet. The first is theory, the second is an actual instance of harm.

Both are anecdotal: You can ascribe no more weight to one or the other but you are Somehow Ravenbaits account is more valuable because it fits the facts as you see them. I see the difference but I just wanted to see where you're objectivity scale was.

Ergo:

My view: I fractured my skull, it's debatable if a helmet would've have helped.
Your view: You fractured your skull but that doesn't prove anything about helmets

My view: Ravenbait twisted her neck, perhaps helmet design needs looking at.
Your view: Ravenbait twisted her neck, that proves helmets really are not good.


Or that's how it seems.

 

[BentMikey]

I think you've completely missed the point, crackle. Sure, both are anecdotal, that's not in contention. The point is that your incident proves nothing about helmets either way, and neither would a helmeted crash, though both are often used to "prove" that helmets do protect. Ravenbait's proves that helmets can sometimes injure. It's not biased, it's simply fact.

 

[BentMikey]

Halleluyah - I finally persuaded Mike to give me some reasoning, which it turns out is as illogical as the original claim - and someone else recognises it as such. Thanks, swee'pea...

The govt. has said that if there were something like 80% helmet wearing rates, then they would consider bringing in helmet legislation. My point is thus correct, and you are clutching at straws.

No, you're doing more than that - you're avoiding logic and debate, and just decrying my argument, without basis in fact. It's pretty funny seeing you and Origamist blame me for your own faults!!

 

[BentMikey]

You'll have to ask her that, but ISTR that the helmet snagged and yanked and twisted her head via the straps.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Ravenbait's proves that helmets can sometimes injure. It's not biased, it's simply fact.

Not necessarily. She could have cricked her neck without the helmet. You can't say for sure either way, and as such, your example carries no more weight than the "last night a helmet saved my life" posts.
However, I swore I wouldn't get involved in this one again ...