Would it be churlish to point out that by definition a fact is only a fact because it is verifiable?
Helmet saved my life yesterday
- Thread starter Thomk
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Would it be churlish to point out that by definition a fact is only a fact because it is verifiable?
People should be allowed to make an uninformed decision too. Its not the opinion holding I have a problem with as long as it doesn't impact others. Where I do object is people with uninformed opinions using them to encourage others to that opinion.
david k
Hi
- Location
- North West
I must be simple as I'm not sure if this is poking fun at me or not
The circular argument appears to be:
Opening: Can I hold an opinion without having to have proof as to why
Post 1: You can hold your opinion thats not a problem
Reply: Then we agree
Post 2: Where is your evidence that wearing a helmet is a benefit
Reply: I dont need evidence to hold an opinion, as you agreed
Post 3: But if you are telling people they should wear a helmet you must back it up with fact
Reply: I am just sharing my opinion
Post 4: I have stated evidence to show my beliefs, where is your benefit
Reply: Why do I need evidence to prove an opinion, as yet I have not been convinced otherwise
Post 5: You must make an informed decision
Reply, refer to opening
Anyway, I am not interested in opening the helmet debate again, you know my views and I stand by them, you will no doubt continue to question me despite me growing tired of this some time ago. My point was really to support a previous post in disapproving of the tactics and approaches shown by some. This again had been proved within just a few replies, ridicule, ad nauseam, demanding evidence despite previously claiming its not needed for opinion etc etc...
david k
Hi
- Location
- North West
[QUOTE 2113929, member: 45"]So, I've asked several times now whether someone would like to explain the Australian evidence that shoes a difference between the reduction in arm injuries and head injuries which may suggest some level of effectiveness. And no-one has responded, apart from cunobelin's joke.
No skin off my nose if people can't, won't or don't want to go there.[/quote]
No reply yet mate?
No skin off my nose if people can't, won't or don't want to go there.[/quote]
No reply yet mate?
My problem with the Australian study was the failure to actually prove a link.
One of their findings was that increased funding of cycling infrastructure "accelerated the decline in head injuries", suggesting that helmet use alone is not responsible for any decrease in head injuries
There is also the claim that cyclist numbers are increasing - this may well be true especially if infrastructure (as suggested by the authors) is making cycling a safer activity. However the word increasing is subtle, numbers have increased, but has the decline been reversed?
Noting the bias of the authors, this work suggests that in at least some of the states that the number of cyclists has not risen at the same rate as th population. Simply there is still a lower uptake, and in many states this is significant.
As for arms.... the theory is that if the number of cyclist increased then so would the number of injuries. Hence by looking at arm injuries they reflected the number of accidents and that they would exactly mirror the head injury rate. As head injuries have decreased and arm injuries have not, helmets must work!
This totally ignores the difference in cycling behaviour. With increased segregation, it is entirely possible that the nature of cycling has changed. The authors note (and then refuse to consider) that cycling infrastructure had a greater effect on head injury reduction than compulsion.
Could it be simply because the cyclists are simply experiencing different accidents?
Falling on a cycle track - you put your arm out to break your fall and it becomes injured, at slower speeds and with no vehicular traffic involved it may be more simply that heads are not coming into contact that explains the difference?
One of their findings was that increased funding of cycling infrastructure "accelerated the decline in head injuries", suggesting that helmet use alone is not responsible for any decrease in head injuries
There is also the claim that cyclist numbers are increasing - this may well be true especially if infrastructure (as suggested by the authors) is making cycling a safer activity. However the word increasing is subtle, numbers have increased, but has the decline been reversed?
Noting the bias of the authors, this work suggests that in at least some of the states that the number of cyclists has not risen at the same rate as th population. Simply there is still a lower uptake, and in many states this is significant.
As for arms.... the theory is that if the number of cyclist increased then so would the number of injuries. Hence by looking at arm injuries they reflected the number of accidents and that they would exactly mirror the head injury rate. As head injuries have decreased and arm injuries have not, helmets must work!
This totally ignores the difference in cycling behaviour. With increased segregation, it is entirely possible that the nature of cycling has changed. The authors note (and then refuse to consider) that cycling infrastructure had a greater effect on head injury reduction than compulsion.
Could it be simply because the cyclists are simply experiencing different accidents?
Falling on a cycle track - you put your arm out to break your fall and it becomes injured, at slower speeds and with no vehicular traffic involved it may be more simply that heads are not coming into contact that explains the difference?
mickle
innit
- Location
- 53.933606, -1.076131
I wouldnt ride a motorbike because theyre fecking death traps. But if i did id wear all the gear - leathers, boots, gloves and helmet. Im always reminded of the story of the motorcyclist wjo came off his bike at speed and suffered appalling injuries. They were able to establish how fast hed been going by calculating how far it took to wear through his knee protection and his leathers and his skin and finally his kneecaps before he wrapped his spine around a telegraph post. But quite what relevance the question of motorcycle helmets to the subject of bicycle helmets i do not know. I rarely travel in excess of 20mph and so any injury i might suffer would be pretty close to the parameters for which my body evolved.
mickle
innit
- Location
- 53.933606, -1.076131
I am.
I presume nothing of the sort; it's the conclusion I have come to after studying the evidence, no presumption at all. In fact quite the opposite: my presumption was that helmets must be effective, and it was the evidence that showed I was wrong in that presumption.
I'm afraid that each position is not equally valid, as one is informed by the evidence, and one is not.
People can wear a helmet, or not, for whatever reason they want. But if they state as fact (rather than opinion) that helmets are effective, then they need to back that up with evidence.
In other words: people are entitled to their own opinions; they are not entitled to their own facts.
Compare like with like. If a motorcycle helmet is like the latest hydraulic disk brake on the latest downhill MTB then a bicycle helmet is like a spoon brake on a penny farthing.
- Location
- The TerrorVortex
[QUOTE 2113929, member: 45"]So, I've asked several times now whether someone would like to explain the Australian evidence that shoes a difference between the reduction in arm injuries and head injuries which may suggest some level of effectiveness. And no-one has responded, apart from cunobelin's joke.
No skin off my nose if people can't, won't or don't want to go there.[/quote]
If the best one can do is find a study that may suggest some level of effectiveness, then that's pretty poor...
No skin off my nose if people can't, won't or don't want to go there.[/quote]
If the best one can do is find a study that may suggest some level of effectiveness, then that's pretty poor...
I think the most dangerous bit was being clipped to our bike - ok the loony car driver was the most dangerous bit-
but not being able to leave the bike sounds like a really dodgy bit, I,ve been thrown over my handlebars on occasion and rolled away, but god knows what would have happened if I was attached to my bike ,
my helmet saved me on one occasion as I actually landed on my head, the bike then hit me on the collar bone and cracked it. - you can,t win em all
but not being able to leave the bike sounds like a really dodgy bit, I,ve been thrown over my handlebars on occasion and rolled away, but god knows what would have happened if I was attached to my bike ,
my helmet saved me on one occasion as I actually landed on my head, the bike then hit me on the collar bone and cracked it. - you can,t win em all
oh I thought it was the OH F_CK reflex which comes first
sorry couldn,t resist that.
I figures its because the helmet stopped them being Ko,d the arm injury comes from clobbering the bloke that knocked them off in the first place.
- Status
