Have a look at what Barnowl said right after your post, a simple fact that many others have posted previously, that the head is rarely at risk when coming off a bike.

 

Have a look at how the stats show things.

 

Then have a look at my thread proposition which was that the proselytizing helmet wearers are more reckless.

 

It's not me who's not getting the point Caph. The point is that, as you've so admirably shown, it's those who through their proneness to accidents prefer helmet wearing who do this head banging on the concrete, as shown by the accounts of their accidents.

 

We non-helmet wearers seem to be a different breed, who as I've shown are much less prone to indulging in head banging on concrete.

.

 

Tony,

 

You're being mischievous. Each time you restate your proposition slightly differently. And the general proposition has been shown to be not supported by the evidence. It may or may not be true, but it can't be shown to be true or untrue.

 

Actually, compared to the rest of the debate and analysis of helmet wearing, Caph's proposed experiment of banging the subject's head with concrete is remarkably valid and useful. Caph, it would be better to hold the concrete still and bang the head against that - the dynamics are different, and more representative of hitting the road or a lamppost.

 

Now suppose we did this experiment many times in order to get statistically valid results, with different heads at different velocities and angles. It would be a very strange world indeed if we didn't conclude that, on average, having a helmet on when banging your head was a good idea.

 

Later, I will explain how both sides of the debate are being disingenuous, how they each take this piece of common sense and warp it, with the use of statistics, to their own ends.

 

Nick

Tony,

 

You're being mischievous. Each time you restate your proposition slightly differently. And the general proposition has been shown to be not supported by the evidence. It may or may not be true, but it can't be shown to be true or untrue.

 

Nick

 

This is not so Nick. The thread title was clear, and the closing statement in it's body equally so:

 

"I therefore conclude that those who wear helmets and post their lurid survival accounts are reckless since they have so many serious accidents."

 

The thread was about the safety of the proselytising helmet wearers, and I haven't been altering that. Others have been changing the subject to whether one should wear a helmet or not, but you can hardly blame me for that.

 

The general proposition is demonstrated to be true in the last three paragraphs here and that answered your challenge:

 

"You make a claim and then propose an explanation. First of all you haven't established the claim - you haven't actually shown that non helmet wearers are having more or worse accidents. You have produced an anecdote that suggests that may be the case, but you haven't demonstrated it."

 

In your challenge to the methodology your best and only viable scenario was:

 

"Here's another (and better) example. I sometimes wear one and sometimes I don't; I base the decision on the estimated risk of having an accident during the journey."

 

You then claimed:

 

Your essential claim was that if these things we were hearing were true, then a certain section of the population must be behaving irrationally. I showed that the outcome could be the result of rational decisions about when to wear a helmet.

but you hadn't shown anything since this is completely irrelevant to the helmet wearers of my thread subject. As ardent promoters of helmet wearing they wouldn't be making such a choice, so I'm quite happy with my proposition and the soundness of my conclusions which are not statistically quantified other than stating the direction of the outcome.

.

Edited January 20, 200917 yr by flecc

 

In your challenge to the methodology your best and only viable scenario was:

 

Let's leave aside whether it was "the best and only". It only requires one plausible scenario. The claim was phrased as "it must be so", so merely producing another explanation refutes it.

 

As for that being irrelevant to the actual claim because of some specific phrasing on your part, as I said, you kept changing the words, so I took the trouble to quote the claim in the response I posted. The post demolishing the claim stands on its own merits; its no use saying now that that's not what you meant.

 

I'd always had you down as a rational bystander in the crazy debate, but you seem to now have thrown your lot in with one of the camps and started to adopt the whole religion.

 

Nick

Let's leave aside whether it was "the best and only". It only requires one plausible scenario. The claim was phrased as "it must be so", so merely producing another explanation refutes it.

 

As for that being irrelevant to the actual claim because of some specific phrasing on your part, as I said, you kept changing the words, so I took the trouble to quote the claim in the response I posted. The post demolishing the claim stands on its own merits; its no use saying now that that's not what you meant.

 

I'd always had you down as a rational bystander in the crazy debate, but you seem to now have thrown your lot in with one of the camps and started to adopt the whole religion.

 

Nick

 

Now you are the one who is warping things Nick, nowhere have I said my words were not what I meant. I posted what I meant at the outset and have doggedly stuck to it.

 

And this is wrong and disingenuous:

 

The claim was phrased as "it must be so", so merely producing another explanation refutes it.

 

The explanation produced must be viable to refute it, and you did not produce a viable explanation. You are the one asking for accuracy after all.

 

Finally, how have I thrown my hat into one camp, when the very subject of the thread and my argument does not take any position on whether helmet wearing is desirable or not. During the thread I tried to answer those diverting the subject as a matter of courtesy, but as I've already observed, you cannot blame me for those diversions.

 

This comment on my joining one camp shows just how badly you've misread my thread introduction.

.

Edited January 20, 200917 yr by flecc

I kept out of this thread (so far) as I suspected that Flecc started it as a deliberate can of worms to stimulate some discussion, daft ideas, gentle abuse, etc. I wasn't disappointed either!

 

Did someone order a can of worms?

 

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p281/matt518672/can-of-worms.jpg

 

Anyway, why aren't you all watching the Obama thing on TV?

 

Anyway, why aren't you all watching the Obama thing on TV?

 

You have to be kidding Danny!

 

That has been so done to death by the media that the next time it's mentioned the TV could go out of the window.

.

You have to be kidding Danny!

 

That has been so done to death by the media that the next time it's mentioned the TV could go out of the window.

.

 

 

Hee hee hee!

Now you are the one who is warping things Nick, nowhere have I said my words were not what I meant. I posted what I meant at the outset and have doggedly stuck to it.

 

And this is wrong and disingenuous:

 

The claim was phrased as "it must be so", so merely producing another explanation refutes it.

 

The explanation produced must be viable to refute it, and you did not produce a viable explanation. You are the one asking for accuracy after all.

 

 

Tony, am I missing something here? You introduced the word "viable". First you say this:

 

In your challenge to the methodology your best and only viable scenario was:

 

Then you say this:

 

The explanation produced must be viable to refute it, and you did not produce a viable explanation. You are the one asking for accuracy after all.

 

Each time you are talking about the same thing: how a scenario of people wearing helmets for higher risk journeys but not for lower risk explains the statistics you are seeing.

 

As for you being in one or other camp, I'm glad to hear its not so. Its just that I'm in the middle and all your missiles seem to be going in one direction.

 

Nick

Tony, am I missing something here? You introduced the word "viable". First you say this:

 

Each time you are talking about the same thing: how a scenario of people wearing helmets for higher risk journeys but not for lower risk explains the statistics you are seeing.

 

Nick

 

Yes, I think this must be a misunderstanding Nick. You spoke of the scenario of people wearing helmets for higher risk journeys but not for lower risk, illustrated by your saying "I sometimes wear one and sometimes I don't".

 

You followed with: "Your essential claim was that if these things we were hearing were true, then a certain section of the population must be behaving irrationally. I showed that the outcome could be the result of rational decisions about when to wear a helmet."

 

It was that last sentence which I say is not a viable way to refute when the subject of the thread concerned people who would always wear a helmet. They would not be making variable decisions on helmet wearing.

 

To explain the thread, my overall position is that if the proselytising helmet wearers are right in their claims about the death or brain damage outcome of their accident if they hadn't worn a helmet, it leaves these conclusions:

 

1) Since this proselytising group are so numerous, one would expect a comparable and substantial incidence of actual death/brain damage in the substantial non-helmet wearing group.

 

2) The actual cyclist deaths and by implication, brain damage, are very low and cannot be enough to satisfy (1) above, especially since a proportion of those deaths are of helmet wearers.

 

3) Therefore the helmet wearing proselytisers are not as safe as the non-helmet wearers, since they are suffering the higher ratio of potentially death/brain damage threatening incidents they report.

 

There is no accurate quantification in this proposal, nor is one necessary, since I'm only showing a direction of trend, not it's degree.

 

Of course, it is probably true that the accounts of death/brain damage etc are an exaggeration and the outcomes would not have been as claimed.

 

Either way I don't mind, since both discredit the annoying proselytisers, they are either inaccurate in their claims or less safe on the road, and showing this was my objective with this thread.

 

Unfortunately it was turned into a thread about the pros and cons of helmet wearing, well off subject.

.

Edited January 21, 200917 yr by flecc

Baby on Board syndrome

 

There is substantial evidence to indicate that people who stick repulsive "baby on board" stickers on the back windows of their cars are more likely to be rear-ended (for want of a better expression) than those reckless and irresponsible so-called parents who throw caution to the wind and risk their child's certain demise..

 

( Am I alone in harbouring a not so secret desire to accelerate violently at the very sight of one?)

 

Thus, if we apply the same Darwinian principle to helmet- wearing, multi-light flashing, luminated, banana clothed, hysterically reflectivised eejits like me...

 

 

Then, I'm in deep dark poo poo..

 

bw

musicbooks

Unfortunately it was turned into a thread about the pros and cons of helmet wearing, well off subject.

.

 

Hi Tony,

 

Well let's try to keep it as a thread about how daft some of the arguments presented by the extremists are. I'm sure we both agree on that, and that actually, even if I do wear a helmet sometimes, we are on pretty much the same ground.

 

I'm sorry for associating you with the extremists. Its just that while the helmet worshippers are bad enough, some of those opposing them are also using daft, illogical and misleading arguments. In the spirit of fairness, I am obliged to throw rocks* in both directions.

 

Nick

 

*We use only ROSPA approved simulated plastic rocks with a Rockwell Hardness of less than 0.1. No minerals were harmed in the making of this argument.

Speed kills, and accidents happen.

 

Speed kills

Double the speed and you have four times the energy. This is really surprising! Its very hard to grasp, so we could say:

 

Speed kills, and not a lot of people know that.

 

Your head at 40 mph has sixteen times the kinetic energy as mine at 10 mph. It has to be dissipated as damage or heat in a crash. Lots of potential for fatalities.

 

Accidents Happen

Say you skid on a patch of spilt diesel fuel when you are going down hill. At 40 mph and with a reaction time of quarter of a second you travel over 4 metres before you can start to do anything about it. Your chances of survival are more dependent on the proximity of any large heavy stationary objects than on whether you are wearing a helmet.

 

Cars

Modern cars have a central robust compartment, with crumple zones back and front to absorb the energy. The occupant is strapped in so that they decelerate with the central compartment.

 

Bikes

Bike and motorbikes actually have quite an effective crumple zone in the front wheel and the forks. The trouble is the rider tends to detach from the bike and pile head first into the object in front at the speed he was riding at.

 

So the really reckless thing to be doing is using two wheeled transport at all, particularly at motorbike speeds or as in high speed cycling. We could do our journeys at 30 mph in cars and be much safer.

 

However we don't propose to give up our bikes do we? So we are choosing to be reckless. That puts a new slant on this debate. Why do we choose to be reckless? Could it be that being reckless has some advantages?

Hi Tony,

 

Well let's try to keep it as a thread about how daft some of the arguments presented by the extremists are. I'm sure we both agree on that, and that actually, even if I do wear a helmet sometimes, we are on pretty much the same ground.

 

I'm sorry for associating you with the extremists. Its just that while the helmet worshippers are bad enough, some of those opposing them are also using daft, illogical and misleading arguments. In the spirit of fairness, I am obliged to throw rocks* in both directions.

 

Nick

 

*We use only ROSPA approved simulated plastic rocks with a Rockwell Hardness of less than 0.1. No minerals were harmed in the making of this argument.

 

Absolutely Nick, there's probably as many daft arguments against as for.

 

The only thing I stand for is independence and the right not be harangued

 

Love the disclaimer.

.

 

Speed kills, and accidents happen.

 

Why do we choose to be reckless? Could it be that being reckless has some advantages?

 

That's a nicely condensed summary of facts and good sense, though I'm inclined to say accidents tend to be caused rather than just happen.

 

As for the advantages of recklessness, that's a large and fascinating subject which contains some surprising conclusions.

 

Traditional wisdom recognises that in the saying, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained".

.

Because of the mirror

 

I now wear a helmet because of the rear view mirror which clips into the peak of the helmet, I like to see who is coming up behind me. Also a small LED rear light clips onto the rear of the helmet that I can use if ever my main rear light fails.

 

Derrick - Llanberis

I'm also a mirror fan Derrick, probably the best optional primary safety device possible for a bike, and I know many riders like the helmet mounted ones in preference to handlebar mounted ones which can be a nuisance if they get dislodged.

 

Concerning rear lights at night, as the most overtaken vehicle on the road, bikes can never have too many.

.

 

However we don't propose to give up our bikes do we? So we are choosing to be reckless. That puts a new slant on this debate. Why do we choose to be reckless? Could it be that being reckless has some advantages?

 

I personally don't choose to be reckless. I just choose not to wear a plastic hat on my head.

 

I would happily wear an invisible helmet.

 

...provided it didn't ruin my hair.

Personally i wear a helmet, but i don't think it should be made compulsory.

As regards injuries caused by wearing a helmet in an accident maybe if more emphasis was put on gettiing a correct fit instead of plonk it on your head and it seems ok scenario,then there may be less injuries. After all you now get measured for the correct size of bra (so my wife says) and thats hardly a safety issue unless you are on a bumpy road !!!!!!

If only reckless people posting here are helmet wearers then might that be an indication that helmets work, at least for the reckless.

If only reckless people posting here are helmet wearers then might that be an indication that helmets work, at least for the reckless.

 

Good point CheKmx.

 

Someone's got to test them.

.

Can we just spare a moment to distinguish between helmets that look like they may have been prised off an alien's crotch

 

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Q4MXV386L.jpg

 

And those which have more style?

 

http://www.50cycles.com/images/yakkay/tokyo-pink-jazz450.jpg

 

http://www.50cycles.com/paris-herringbone450.jpg

 

Thank you

Cycling proficiency...

 

Currently I have 3 helmets:

 

When I'm climbing I wear my climbing helmet.

When I'm whitewater kayaking I wear my kayaking helmet.

When I'm cycling I wear my cycling helmet.

 

Do they work?

Well the climbing helmet has certainly deflected quite a few falling rocks that might otherwise have brained me.

The kayaking helmet has also saved me from very nasty blows from underwater rocks, that would certainly have severely injured if not killed me.

 

The cycling helmet? Well the trouble with these is they are designed for the single large impact of a nasty accident. Luckily I've not yet (touch wood, cross fingers, and bow down to the great traffic god) had one.

And this is the trouble with saying do they work, who is willing to try it out?

 

Personally I wear one because a) I feel naked without it b) I know it's likely to give some protection. The way I see it in an accident there

are 3 main classes of outcome:

 

A) You are dead.

B) You are seriously injured probably with major brain damage.

C) You are lightly injured/OK.

 

In my opinion a helmet moves more of the B) accidents into A) accidents...

 

 

However, as flecc pointed out earlier in the thread the emphasis should really be on accident avoidance.

So if we are going to make anything compulsary it should be some form of cycling training.

Perhaps cycling proficiency should be on the national curriculum to be taught every year. Might encourage kids to cycle, and reduce the accident rate

at the same time.

 

 

Reckless??? Well with climbing you can guarantee that every few years (particularly after someone has died), there are calls in the news to restrict climbing in some way, to stop these reckless fools, compulsary insurance etc. etc.

When actually climbing is about controlling risk, knowing the dangers, planning for them, then taking an informed risk. Should climbers be stopped from taking that risk?

 

 

Cycling without a helmet is a risk, so long as you know that and accept that, it's not really a problem with me.

 

Cheers

 

Steve

 

Should climbers be stopped from taking that risk?

 

No, nor should any other risky activity be banned. I firmly believe we own our own lives and can choose what we want to do with them.

 

If, despite that effect of free will, humans choose to live as communities, the costs of such individual decisions are a normal part of community costs.

.

Currently I have 3 helmets:

 

 

 

Personally I wear one because a) I feel naked without it b) I know it's likely to give some protection. The way I see it in an accident there

are 3 main classes of outcome:

 

A) You are dead.

B) You are seriously injured probably with major brain damage.

C) You are lightly injured/OK.

 

In my opinion a helmet moves more of the B) accidents into A) accidents...

 

 

 

Really? A freudian slip if ever I saw one!

Really? A freudian slip if ever I saw one!

 

Yep you're right I meant B into C! Whoops! Actually I'd prefer if it eliminated B) and we were just left with A and C (for head injuries better dead than vegetable).