Keeping safe and being seen on the road

[presta]

massively increased helmet use has not resulted in massively decreased injuries

The same applies to seatbelts, the huge reduction in deaths predicted by the proponents didn't materialise.

Eh? What's hard to understand about

Not much experience of using AI then?

I usually follow up their references, and they often don't say what they're claimed to say, they aren't necessarily even a relevant subject. This morning Co-pilot gave me a reference which was hypothetical data invented just for some numbers to use in an sample exam question.

 

[icowden]

Not much experience of using AI then?

Loads actually.
You will note that I checked the study it referred to and then provided a link.

I didn't bother with the generalisations because they are just that and well supported.

I'm still of the view that the medical studies show improved outcomes when wearing helmets. I don't think they should be mandatory, but I do think that they are sensible.

 

[matticus]

I wear a helmet and I require all the riders in my 24 Hour races to wear them, but if anyone riding the roads independently chooses not to wear a helmet, then it is entirely their own decision.

You tell us nothing about your race: what is it that makes head injuries more likely than riding to the event on a public road?

 

[Alex321]

You tell us nothing about your race: what is it that makes head injuries more likely than riding to the event on a public road?

Almost any race, with the possibly exception of time trials, has a higher risk of crashes that just riding on the open road in a non-race situation.

And TBH, why does it matter. Race organisers can set rules like that as they wish. All UCI sanctioned races require helmets.

 

[matticus]

....
And TBH, why does it matter. Race organisers can set rules like that as they wish. All UCI sanctioned races require helmets.

Clearly it matters to YOU - why else would you get do defensive about it?

(Helmet fans are funny ... )

 

[blackrat]

Clearly it matters to YOU - why else would you get do defensive about it?

(Helmet fans are funny ... )

In your house, do you have any rules of behaviour for visitors?

 

[Alex321]

Clearly it matters to YOU - why else would you get do defensive about it?

(Helmet fans are funny ... )

Anti-helmet folks are funnier, reading things that haven't been written.

I wasn't the slightest bit defensive there, and said exactly what I meant.

 

[matticus]

In your house, do you have any rules of behaviour for visitors?

You've demonstrated rather beautifully the mindset that seems to drive most helmet advocates and 99% of helmet rule-makers:
We do it this way, so you shall too. Why? Because we say so. Our site/club/event, our rules!

Thankyou for your help in this study.

 

[Alex321]

You've demonstrated rather beautifully the mindset that seems to drive most helmet advocates and 99% of helmet rule-makers:
We do it this way, so you shall too. Why? Because we say so. Our site/club/event, our rules!

Thankyou for your help in this study.

I disagree completely. There are a few like him, but I am quite sure it is not "most" of the helmet advocates, nor even "most" (51% or more) of the rule-makers.

Personally, I am very much in favour of helmets, and always wear one myself, so you could call me a "helmet advocate", but I do NOT think there should be any legislation requiring their use.

If you enter an event (race or otherwise), then you have to follow the event organisers rules, whether you agree with them or not, but outside of that, it should be the choice of the individual.

I can see the argument that it is no different in principle to the requirement for motorcycle riders to wear helmets, or car occupants to wear seatbelts, both of which have been in force for decades. But while I understand that argument, I don't really agree with it, because I don't think the level of danger (in terms of injuries per 1000 hours or similar measure) is as high as either of those.

 

[matticus]

In your house, do you have any rules of behaviour for visitors?

What a strange question; I don't have any unusual hazards in my house, so why would I require visitors to don PPE on entry? 🤷‍♀️

Do you?

 

[matticus]

If you enter an event (race or otherwise), then you have to follow the event organisers rules, whether you agree with them or not, but outside of that, it should be the choice of the individual.

Do you participate in any non-cycling events, contests or races Alex?

 

[matticus]

Personally, I am very much in favour of helmets, and always wear one myself, so you could call me a "helmet advocate", but I do NOT think there should be any legislation requiring their use.

If you enter an event (race or otherwise), then you have to follow the event organisers rules, whether you agree with them or not, but outside of that, it should be the choice of the individual.

What's your view on rules for workplaces, or for (non-racing) clubs?
[sorry for the separate posts - the pre-moderation seems to have forced my hand ... ]

 

[Alex321]

Do you participate in any non-cycling events, contests or races Alex?

I presume you are trying to make some sort of point with that question, but I have no idea what it might be.

The answer is yes though, events in particular.

 

[Alex321]

What's your view on rules for workplaces, or for (non-racing) clubs?
[sorry for the separate posts - the pre-moderation seems to have forced my hand ... ]

My view is that the organisers or employers can make whatever rules they like (within the constraints of the law of course), and if you want that job, or want to be a member of that club, then you follow those rules.

 

[oldandslow]

A few years ago, the "Bad Science" books sold well. I think it's worth reviewing what their author, together with a colleague, said. One reason I'm impressed by it is that, as far as I know, neither author has "skin in the game" - their interest is not as cyclists, nor as front-line practitioners, but simply because helmets illustrate how complex and misleading the world of medical statistics can be. There was an overview in road.cc, as well as one author's own summary. In general, science works by overall consensus, not by quoting individual papers as "proving" things - only non-scientists do that. Rather, a single paper is a contribution to the whole, that is subject to comparison with and challenge by other work. So it's helpful that this paper is taking an overview.

That's not to say that there isn't significant evidence in favour of helmets, including favourable overviews of research to date, but equally there is negative research as well. As far as I recall the first doubting paper was in the Journal of Product Liability around 1987. There was a reference up-thread to risk compensation being proposed as an argument against helmets, but that's not my recollection. That and several other points first arose in the debate precisely because research was showing that helmets were highly effective, and real-world experience wasn't, so explanations, not counter-arguments, were needed.