Helmet saved my life yesterday

[jonny jeez]

and what percentage of cyclists wear helmets?

If it's less than 1/3 then those numbers would show that helmets actually make head injuries more likely. This is the context you continually fail to grasp.

Evidence in Australia showed that as helmet wearing was made compulsory, head injuries dropped - great you say. It also showed that the number of cyclists dropped by the same % as the number of head injuries - so no overall effect.

The initial state of the sample size has to be considered before any absolute stats can be analysed.

Steady there @mcshroom. I'm not failing to grasp any context. Take a moment to read my posts in this thread and you'll notice that I have not just taken all of this on board but have found it useful and thought provoking. You are in serious danger of now isolating me by telling me I'm somehow " failing" just because I reach a conclusion that you don't agree with.

Its not a failure on my part.

Its called informed choice.

Anyhow, back to your post. In what way is the percentage of helmet wearers relevant to my comment?

I'm not debating percentages and "proof" any more, I'm done on that issue and have moved on. I'm merely picking RL up on a quote he made that appears to confirm that of 1000 Cyclists that took one in the head when they fell, 300 wore a lid and 600 didn't

 

[mcshroom]

But unless the helmet usage rates are considered that tells you exactly nothing.

 

[hoopdriver]

No. I was not belittling an inability to think but pointing out an overlooked opportunity to have thought. It is all bound up with the fact that helmet wearing justificationists have a pseudo religion thing going on based on an emotional response.

Gotta love those rationalizations...

 

[mcshroom]

Good. Now is there any substance to go with this?

Why does he need substance? It's common sense innit!

 

[Davidc]

I am anti compulsion, very much so, but I am anti compulsion on libertarian grounds and do not feel any need to buttress my arguments with ludicrous faux science or absurdist interpretations or a complete dismissal of every event and accident as anecdote and valueless. That is just silly. Anyone who doesn't want to wear a helmet is welcome to as far as I am concerned. I couldn't care if anyone does or not. I would just prefer it if people would man up and say they've assessed the risks and chose not to wear a helmet, instead of creating a lot of la-la rationalsations ad denial of risk.

OK

I have assessed the risks and choose not to wear a helmet. Except when it's cold.

 

[hoopdriver]

Good. Now is there any substance to go with this?

Your rationalizations? I don't know. You tell me.

 

[mcshroom]

[QUOTE 2102765, member: 45"]Anyone know the longer term effects in Oz? I've asked this before, but no-one seemed interested in answering, and I'm not one for drawing conclusions.[/quote]

37.5% drop in cycling rates - http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=9507

 

[mcshroom]

[QUOTE 2102771, member: 45"]Right, so hands up those who take these helmet threads seriously?

I jest, but I'm rather concerned that there are a couple.....[/quote]

I gave up taking them too seriously a while ago. The debates and evidence given in them did change my stance on helmets though.

 

[hoopdriver]

37.5% drop in cycling rates - http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=9507

Actually no.

There was a very major 21 year research study by the University of New South Wales released within the past ten days or so that indicated the use of helmets had brought about a statistically significant drop in head injuries

 

[mcshroom]

I'm assuming we have to take your word on that

CARRS-Q claimed similar although it didn't mention the drop in cycling rates at the same time which negated it's suggested gains

 

[the snail]

Got a reference for that?

http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/bike-helmet-critics-not-using-their-heads
looks like helmets caused an increase in arm injuries, or something

 

[Red Light]

What I love about this so called debate is the complete unwillingness of anyone of the anti helmet persuasion to be guided by experience. Nothing past has any value. They are only anecdotes and meaningless. Everything is brand new every day to these people, like a goldfish going up and down inside a tank.

I prefer evidence based rather than anecdote based actions. We had centuries when people were bled and treated with all sorts of snake oils based on being guided by personal experiences of their physicians. And then we got wise and went for evidence based medicine which is where we are today with professional medicine (although there are still a lot of snake oil salesmen around of the sort that did for Steve Jobs). And the evidence says that helmets do not work period whatever the snake oil salesmen may try to claim about how their snake oil effects miracle cures.

 

[Red Light]

I think maybe you're the one not getting it. They aren't the numbers you quoted, so don't pat me on the head and say "there there, lots of people are thick too".

You didn't say in a sample of 1000 cyclists...blah blah. You said, in in a sample of 1000 head injuries sustained from a fall.... That's a totally different equation.

Sounds a bit like your trying to squirm out of the fact that you told us all that of 1000 head injury's, 600 were helmet less and 300 were with a helmet.

your numbers not mine.

If everybody wore helmets then of a 1000 cyclists head injuries, all would have been wearing helmets and none without.

If nobody wore helmets then of a 1000 cyclist head injuries none would have been wearing a helmet and all without.

If half the people wear a helmet and half not then of a 1000 cyclist head injures 500 would have been wearing a helmet and 500 not.

And finally if, as in fact is the case, a third wear a helmet and two thirds not then of a 1000 head injuries 333 would have been wearing a helmet and 667 not.

You need to reference the head injury numbers with and without helmets to the numbers of cyclists with and without helmets. And while you are wrong I did not pat you on the head and call you thick. I said its a mistake that is frequently made which it is.

 

[pubrunner]

It is all bound up with the fact that helmet wearing justificationists have a pseudo religion thing going on based on an emotional response.

I think I'd feel entitled to be pretty emotional, if I bashed my head on the road !

Some have mentioned that humans have evolved in such a way, that they won't get hurt when they land; this idea might be okay for grass, but for concrete and asphalt ? Given that most cyclists ride quite close to the side of the road, in the event of a fall onto concrete kerbing, am I really better off without a helmet ?

 

[ufkacbln]

Actually no.

There was a very major 21 year research study by the University of New South Wales released within the past ten days or so that indicated the use of helmets had brought about a statistically significant drop in head injuries

The drop in head injuries being less than the drop in cyclists.

When compared, the end result is that the remaining cyclists suffer more head injuries than prior to the compulsion!