How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[Licramite]

I suggest you forget statistics,percentages and "in depth studies" - they all contradict each other.
just read my latest crash forums on this site. - and hope it never happens to you.

classic quote from ww2 (actual quote) 5 guys going out on patrol and the Sergent says , "theirs a good chance at least one of you won,t be coming back," and Burquart looked at his buddies and though, 'gee that's a real same , I wonder which one of the guys is going to get it ? '

 

[benb]

I suggest you forget statistics,percentages and "in depth studies" - they all contradict each other.
just read my latest crash forums on this site. - and hope it never happens to you.

classic quote from ww2 (actual quote) 5 guys going out on patrol and the Sergent says , "theirs a good chance at least one of you won,t be coming back," and Burquart looked at his buddies and though, 'gee that's a real same , I wonder which one of the guys is going to get it ? '

Translation: ignore the evidence, I just know that helmets are effective.

Seems like a religious position to me.

 

[Licramite]

No , its - all the Researched evidence is contradictory, - it is there is no consensus.
Statistics are bunk - you make statistics do anything , statisticts have proved your more likely to have an accident if you wear a helmet. - that alone is enough to show the value of statistics.

I'm saying - look at the accident reports - from people who have been in accidents
draw your conclusions from them - not abstract studies that have thier own agendas.

the last bit was how people think about danger.
Douglas Adams had the - "its somebody elses problem" drive
we have - "it won't happen to me " safety devices.

 

[Davidc]

No , its - all the Researched evidence is contradictory, - it is there is no consensus.
Statistics are bunk - you make statistics do anything , statisticts have proved your more likely to have an accident if you wear a helmet. - that alone is enough to show the value of statistics.

I'm saying - look at the accident reports - from people who have been in accidents
draw your conclusions from them - not abstract studies that have thier own agendas.

the last bit was how people think about danger.
Douglas Adams had the - "its somebody elses problem" drive
we have - "it won't happen to me " safety devices.

Researched evidence is not contradictory, it's all that's worth looking at and it says that there's no net benefit or disbenefit to helmet wearing. There isn't enough of it though.

Statistics are anything but bunk. They are the basis of much of our knowledge, of science, and of much of what we do. They show that helmet wearing increases the probability of having an accident. As a result the causes of that have been investigated with a view to mitigation. That you don't understand the result doesn't falsify it. Don't confuse politicians twisting numbers with the mathematics of statistics.

You have shown in this and other threads that your approach to anything related to cycling safety is entirely subjective and based on the premise that cycling is dangerous, which from the statistics we know it isn't. The suggestion that accident reports are of greater value than large scale statistical studies is demonstration of this. It is only through objective study that progress in improving safety can be made. Accident reports may contribute to aspects of that study, but only when used as a part of properly constructed statistically based research.

The "It won't happen to me" approach to safety exists but is fortunately rare. The most useful approach is "It could happen to me, what are the odds of it happening to me and how do I shift them in my favour?".

 

[benb]

No , its - all the Researched evidence is contradictory, - it is there is no consensus.
Statistics are bunk - you make statistics do anything , statisticts have proved your more likely to have an accident if you wear a helmet. - that alone is enough to show the value of statistics.

I'm saying - look at the accident reports - from people who have been in accidents
draw your conclusions from them - not abstract studies that have thier own agendas.

the last bit was how people think about danger.
Douglas Adams had the - "its somebody elses problem" drive
we have - "it won't happen to me " safety devices.

This is, frankly, drivel.

Anecdote (OMG, my helmet saved my life, just look at the dent in it) does not equal data, let alone evidence for the effectiveness of helmets.

The only way we can find out whether helmets are effective is studies of large numbers. And that means statistics. We can't help it if you will not or cannot understand the science behind the studies, but the simple fact is that the evidence shows there is no significant reduction in head injury if you wear a helmet.

 

[Licramite]

ok - so forget the research as its not come to a conclusion as you say. -

Statistics - heres a good one - in WW2 after great study statistically it took 25000 rounds of small arms ammo to kill 1 man. A PLatoon of infantry 30men+3 Mgs carries (200r per man with about 4000r for mg) = 18000rounds so it did not have enough ammo to kill 1 man.
so how did people die of small arms wounds in a platoon firefight , clubed them to death?

Statisticly the people who were injured on this forum - shouldn't have been
maybe they should have as most seam to have been wearing helmets.

In WW1 in 1915 they issued helmets to the british and were astonished at the increase in head injuries, certain senior generals actually thought of withdrawing them as they thought it made the men less careful !
Statiskly you were far more likely to be wounded in the head than without one - I wonder why?

the evidence is in the accident reports , I read them for the building industry all the time - ( stupidity seams to be the commonist cause )

I think an awful lot of people use the "it won't happen to me" safety device personnaly.

 

[mcshroom]

Digging up a year old thread in the dungeon and then going out of your way to display your lack of mathematical understanding. You really have some issues to address with your obsession with magic hats.

 

[Ian H]

Suggested reading: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0470618396/?tag=hydra0b-21&hvadid=9550944309&ref=asc_df_0470618396

 

[green1]

In WW1 in 1915 they issued helmets to the british and were astonished at the increase in head injuries, certain senior generals actually thought of withdrawing them as they thought it made the men less careful !

And most of those injuries were caused by poor design which was soon rectified.

 

[Davidc]

ok - so forget the research as its not come to a conclusion as you say. -

Statistics - heres a good one - in WW2 after great study statistically it took 25000 rounds of small arms ammo to kill 1 man. A PLatoon of infantry 30men+3 Mgs carries (200r per man with about 4000r for mg) = 18000rounds so it did not have enough ammo to kill 1 man.
so how did people die of small arms wounds in a platoon firefight , clubed them to death?

Statisticly the people who were injured on this forum - shouldn't have been
maybe they should have as most seam to have been wearing helmets.

In WW1 in 1915 they issued helmets to the british and were astonished at the increase in head injuries, certain senior generals actually thought of withdrawing them as they thought it made the men less careful !
Statiskly you were far more likely to be wounded in the head than without one - I wonder why?

the evidence is in the accident reports , I read them for the building industry all the time - ( stupidity seams to be the commonist cause )

I think an awful lot of people use the "it won't happen to me" safety device personnaly.

What a load of utter rubbish.

Later I'll be collecting my mtb from the lbs where it's getting one of its lifetime servicing services. I won't have a helmet with me. I know from the research and statistics that that will make no difference to the probability of a serious injury to me*, whether I have a crash or not on the way home.

That's nothing to do with any thoughts of "It won't happen to me". It's to do with assessing risk knowing the factors involved.

*Superficial scratches are not serious.

Oh, and it'll be dark as well. I assess that as having no extra risk over daylight, based on the albeit meagre evidence available.

 

[benb]

ok - so forget the research as its not come to a conclusion as you say. -

Statistics - heres a good one - in WW2 after great study statistically it took 25000 rounds of small arms ammo to kill 1 man. A PLatoon of infantry 30men+3 Mgs carries (200r per man with about 4000r for mg) = 18000rounds so it did not have enough ammo to kill 1 man.
so how did people die of small arms wounds in a platoon firefight , clubed them to death?

Statisticly the people who were injured on this forum - shouldn't have been
maybe they should have as most seam to have been wearing helmets.

In WW1 in 1915 they issued helmets to the british and were astonished at the increase in head injuries, certain senior generals actually thought of withdrawing them as they thought it made the men less careful !
Statiskly you were far more likely to be wounded in the head than without one - I wonder why?

the evidence is in the accident reports , I read them for the building industry all the time - ( stupidity seams to be the commonist cause )

I think an awful lot of people use the "it won't happen to me" safety device personnaly.

The research has come to a conclusion: there is no significant safety benefit to wearing a helmet. More studies will obviously be read with interest, but it's clear that if there is a beneficial effect it is very small and hard to detect. If helmets were brilliant at protecting against head injuries then we would have discovered that by now.

Accident reports can not show you whether a helmet would have helped protect someone from a head injury. Only statistical analysis of large numbers of accidents can do that.

The rest of your post amply demonstrates that you have no understanding of statistics.

 

[Scruffmonster]

I don't believe that this needs a new thread, but this was a good indicator of the mood amongst cyclists.

I'll save the backstory, but between four of us, a slight arguement ensued. The end result was that;

2 of the 4 would rather sacrifice their LIGHTS to commute home (all north of 6 Miles) in the dark, over their helmets.

Taking the +/- of helmets away, Neither understood the concept of Lights preventing accidents. One even said 'What good are lights if you fall off and kill yourself', while the other chimed in with; 'I'd rather be protected than be seen'.

I'm happily bare headed with 5 lights should anyone need context.

EDIT:: 4 colleagues, not friends. (I know that sounds harsh)

 

[benb]

I don't believe that this needs a new thread, but this was a good indicator of the mood amongst cyclists.

I'll save the backstory, but between four of us, a slight arguement ensued. The end result was that;

2 of the 4 would rather sacrifice their LIGHTS to commute home (all north of 6 Miles) in the dark, over their helmets.

Taking the +/- of helmets away, Neither understood the concept of Lights preventing accidents. One even said 'What good are lights if you fall off and kill yourself', while the other chimed in with; 'I'd rather be protected than be seen'.

I'm happily bare headed with 5 lights should anyone need context.

W T actual F?

 

[snorri]

1915 they issued helmets to the british and were astonished at the increase in head injuries, certain senior generals actually thought of withdrawing them as they thought it made the men less careful !
Statiskly you were far more likely to be wounded in the head than without one - I wonder why?.

You really wonder why, after reading all these helmet threads?

 

[Licramite]

I,m with you on the lights over helmet, I would rather avoid the accident than rely on a lid that only protects my head - which I gather in lots of people opinions is my least useful bit.