Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

'Organ donors' without helmets

1…5681011…13

Comments

  • #212
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,515 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    opinion guy wrote: »
    Can someone please summarise the 'nay' side on helmets for me please ?

    Cycling is safe, the benefits of a helmet in a crash are marginal, other activities of similar or higher risk are not considered to be worthy of helmets, compulsion reduces cycling participating therefore is unhealthy on a population-wide basis.


  • #213
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,685 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    opinion guy wrote: »
    Can someone please summarise the 'nay' side on helmets for me please ?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70993721&postcount=48

    from earlier in the thread, note these are only my reasons and do not reflect on anyone else


  • #214
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    opinion guy wrote: »
    Ok I'don't have time to catch up on 14 pages of this.

    As someone who fell off a bike without a helmet and got KO'ed for 20mins, something that would have been prevented by a helmet, I fail to see what the problem is with wearing helmets. Pardon the pun - its a no brainer that cyclists should wear helmets.

    Can someone please summarise the 'nay' side on helmets for me please ?

    it's simple, we're lamenting the amount of people like you who leap to conclusions such as "I fell off and hit my head, if I didn't have a helmet on, I'd be dead". Without an in depth knowledge of anatomy and physics (and apologies if you're an MD who also has a Physics degree), you cannot jump to such a conclusion with any accuracy.

    there's not a 'nay' side on helmet wearing, just a 'nay' side on the compulsory wearing of them -let the cyclist decide if or when they should wear one


  • #215
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    opinion guy wrote:
    Can someone please summarise the 'nay' side on helmets for me please ?

    Assuming your head is safe(r) from harm simply because you've balanced a piece of polystyrene on top of it is lazy thinking. Much like asking people to summarise a multitiude of views expressed on the topic simply because you don't want to read through them yourself.


  • #216
    Idleater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,176 ✭✭✭Idleater


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    One final thing about that press release is, like some of the correspondence in the Irish Times, it quotes fatality figures without context, as if those figures are compelling, when all they can signify without context is that cycling is not a zero-risk mode of transport. Of course, there's no such thing as a zero-risk mode of transport.

    I thought it was funny that they had to go back as far as 1997 in order to get figures high enough to seem meaningful.

    statistics :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,000 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    TinyExplosions wrote: »
    it's simple, we're lamenting the amount of people like you who leap to conclusions such as "I fell off and hit my head, if I didn't have a helmet on, I'd be dead". Without an in depth knowledge of anatomy and physics (and apologies if you're an MD who also has a Physics degree), you cannot jump to such a conclusion with any accuracy.

    there's not a 'nay' side on helmet wearing, just a 'nay' side on the compulsory wearing of them -let the cyclist decide if or when they should wear one


    Now slow down there. I did not say "I fell off and hit my head, if I didn't have a helmet on, I'd be dead". I fell off and DIDN'T have a helmet on and experienced an injury that I wouldn't have if I had a "a piece of polystyrene on top".

    This "argument" is a farce. Basically the anti-helmet arguments can be summarised as "we don't like looking like dorks".

    You can criticise helmet design all you want - but fact is a helmet gives you some protection which is better than no protection. And if you really don't like the cycling helmets - buy yourself a ski helmet - they're better designs.


  • #218
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,685 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Idleater wrote: »
    statistics :rolleyes:

    the best one there is the 33% killed during 25% of the year

    why even highlight that? Or course there are less cyclists in the winter so less accidents and the discrepancy between the % is not big enough to be meaningful anyway.

    If it was 90% during 25% of the year it may be meaningful but as is is totally irrelevant


  • #219
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    opinion guy wrote:
    This "argument" is a farce. Basically the anti-helmet arguments can be summarised as "we don't like looking like dorks".

    What "anti-helmet argument"? You say you haven't read the thread yet you summarise your view of the contents of it in two sentences. Mighty stuff.


  • #220
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    opinion guy wrote: »
    Now slow down there. I did not say "I fell off and hit my head, if I didn't have a helmet on, I'd be dead". I fell off and DIDN'T have a helmet on and experienced an injury that I wouldn't have if I had a "a piece of polystyrene on top".

    Either way you had an accident and jumped to a conclusion that is not based on any fact other that your intuition, which unless as mentioned before you are a Physics loving doctor, is not really worth anything at all. A helmet isn't a magic hat that stops all accidents from happening.

    Again, if you'd read the rest of the thread you'd see one example where there was a crash involving two cyclists who came off in pretty much the same way, hit their heads in pretty much the same way, and both lost consciousness and had concussions. One of them was wearing a helmet and the other wasn't -how come the helmeted cyclist wasn't magically saved from injury by the almighty polystyrene magic hat god?

    opinion guy wrote: »
    This "argument" is a farce. Basically the anti-helmet arguments can be summarised as "we don't like looking like dorks".

    You can criticise helmet design all you want - but fact is a helmet gives you some protection which is better than no protection. And if you really don't like the cycling helmets - buy yourself a ski helmet - they're better designs.

    Fact is that a helmet can give you a limited amount of protection in certain circumstances, and in other circumstances can lead to greater injury.

    But, as stated earlier, and to say it once again for you -the people you seem to see as being anti-helmet are simply saying it should be up to everyone to choose if they wear a helmet, not a legal requirement. They're really very different things


  • #221
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    I do signal that I'm stopping (the patting motion). I've never seen anyone else do it. I was castigated by a motorist once for using it, as she thought I was telling her to slow down.
    I can see how that would happen alright. I don't think I've ever had cause to use the "I'm slowing" signal really. I would use it if I was stopping when it would be unexpected, such as at the side of the road when I have vehicles behind me. Nothing more frustrating than cycling (or indeed driving) behind a cyclist who starts getting slower and slower before they stop and step onto the kerb. But where there are red lights or traffic up ahead it seems to redundant to me to tell someone that you intend to stop.
    tomasrojo wrote: »
    One final thing about that press release is, like some of the correspondence in the Irish Times, it quotes fatality figures without context, as if those figures are compelling, when all they can signify without context is that cycling is not a zero-risk mode of transport. Of course, there's no such thing as a zero-risk mode of transport.
    As pointed out above, they needed to gather 13 years of data to create figures which seem remotely as "devastating" as any other form of transport.
    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    the best one there is the 33% killed during 25% of the year
    It's a little bit bizarre really. They use two terms, "During the summer months" and "during daylight hours" which are beautifully vague. "Summer months" could be anything between May and September, depending on who you ask, and "daylight hours" similarly may or may not include those commuting hours where the sun hasn't quite gone fully down, but it's still too dark to cycle without lights. Not to mention those entire days in the winter when it's "daylight", but so overcast as to require lights on all day.
    We checked this last year and November is statistically the worst month for cyclist deaths in Ireland; the month after the clocks go back. The press release is just far too fluffy and fuzzy for my liking. Lots of "cycle safely" without any real thinking about what "safe cycling" actually is. As pointed out above, the demotion of the importance of giving trucks room just goes to show that the priorities on this are all over the place.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    opinion guy wrote: »
    This "argument" is a farce. Basically the anti-helmet arguments can be summarised as "we don't like looking like dorks".
    Right, so you've basically just ignored the links you were given.

    If you reject the idea that there is any valid anti-helmet argument, then you've clearly got yourself wrapped up in the "safety is everything" paranoida.

    There is a debate on motorcycle helmets too, believe it or not (in the US in particular). One argument shows that while mandatory use of motorcycle helmets statistically saves lives, it also leads to an increase in disabilities when people are involved in motorcycle accidents.
    This is obvious - the helmet only protects the head, so you may save someone's cognitive function while the rest of their body has been annihilated by the huge forces involved in motorcycle crashes.
    And this begs an obvious question - would you want a helmet to save your life only to you in a permenent vegetative state? Would you want your family to have to take care of you in that state or would you all be better off if you'd died?

    Now, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that - just pointing out that there are always valid arguments against mandatory safety equipment. There's no such thing as a perfect safety accessory.


  • #223
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,000 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    doozerie wrote: »
    What "anti-helmet argument"? You say you haven't read the thread yet you summarise your view of the contents of it in two sentences. Mighty stuff.

    Actually I was responding to the summareis people gave me.:)
    TinyExplosions wrote: »
    Either way you had an accident and jumped to a conclusion that is not based on any fact other that your intuition, which unless as mentioned before you are a Physics loving doctor, is not really worth anything at all. A helmet isn't a magic hat that stops all accidents from happening.

    Sorry where is your MD and physics degree ? This is the internet -qualifications are irrelevant. Alternatively we can all claim whatever qualifications we want. I feel like being a rocket scientist and neurosurgeon for the current debate.
    Again, if you'd read the rest of the thread you'd see one example where there was a crash involving two cyclists who came off in pretty much the same way, hit their heads in pretty much the same way, and both lost consciousness and had concussions. One of them was wearing a helmet and the other wasn't -how come the helmeted cyclist wasn't magically saved from injury by the almighty polystyrene magic hat god?

    What does that anecdote prove ? Nothing. Cause its an anecdote. Not a clinical trail. An anecdote. You do understand that anecdotes are useless as an argument do you ? These things only have meaning in large numbers with statistical analysis.

    And it you want me to talk about the specifics of the anecdote. If they hit the wall at a slightly different angle then the outcomes could be wildly different. For example a blow to the temple area might give you an epidural haematoma whereas a similar blow to the frontal area might have little effect (not that a cycle helmet will protect the temple area - the point is small differences in location of blow might make a huge difference - so two accidents which seem 'the same' might in fact be wildly different). Hmm wow what was that some anatomical knowledge ??? who knew these made up internet qualifications were so useful ???? Let us further analyse this. We could speculate that these two people might have different thicknesses to their skulls. So that the kinetic energy of the blow has to be absorbed by a thinner bone and resulting in and increased magnitude if injury despite a helmet. In all likelyhood this guy would have had a worse injury without a helmet. Also small differences in speed can mean a big difference in energy. A few kph could make a big difference. (wow whats that some physics knowledge???)

    Fact is that a helmet can give you a limited amount of protection in certain circumstances, and in other circumstances can lead to greater injury.
    I've heard this said all right. I've never EVER seen any evidence of it. Please provide me with some scientific evidence that helmets can lead to greater injury.


  • #224
    Harrybelafonte
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,450 ✭✭✭Harrybelafonte


    opinion guy wrote: »
    its a no brainer that cyclists should wear helmets.

    You're a bit late there.

    I fell of my bike, smashed my teeth into my head and I didn't die nor did I suffer any brain injuries, therefore I don't need a helmet. See logic wins everytime... ah no, hold on, I should really be wearing a full face helmet now though.


  • #225
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    opinion guy wrote: »
    Sorry where is your MD and physics degree ?

    I don't have either, which is why I don't claim my anecdotal evidence as being proof of the effectiveness or not of helmets, like you have.
    opinion guy wrote: »
    This is the internet -qualifications are irrelevant. Alternatively we can all claim whatever qualifications we want. I feel like being a rocket scientist and neurosurgeon for the current debate.

    Qualifications are not in the least bit relevant. If you were a lead in a certain field, then your argument may have some merit behind it, instead of simply being ill-informed ramblings

    opinion guy wrote: »
    What does that anecdote prove ? Nothing...

    It proves the exact same thing that your anecdote did, however, the difference is that you used yours to jump to a terribly misguided conclusion that helmets were awesome and protected you from all harm


  • #226
    Idleater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,176 ✭✭✭Idleater


    seamus wrote: »
    I don't think I've ever had cause to use the "I'm slowing" signal really. I would use it if I was stopping when it would be unexpected, such as at the side of the road when I have vehicles behind me.

    Nice to go off on this signalling tangent, but I generally indicate to the left and the slow down wave when stopping outside my house (it's on the road) so the vehicles behind get the idea, because there aren't any turnings to the left.

    Similarly (or not really) I love the "Straight on" signal which I use when approaching a roundabout that I can see to be clear "at pace". I give this to the vehicles behind when I move further out into the lane to approach the roundabout "properly". Some obviously have a problem with a cyclist doing ~50kmph in a 50kmph zone.


  • #227
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,000 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    TinyExplosions wrote: »
    Qualifications are not in the least bit relevant. If you were a lead in a certain field, then your argument may have some merit behind it, instead of simply being ill-informed ramblings

    See this not the case. It I were the lead in a certain field then my arugment merits more scrutiny.


  • #228
    petethedrummer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,604 ✭✭✭petethedrummer


    opinion guy wrote: »
    Ok I'don't have time to catch up on 14 pages of this.

    Why don't you read the thread instead of having to get everyone to explain it to you all over again?


  • #229
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    opinion guy wrote: »
    See this not the case. It I were the lead in a certain field then my arugment merits more scrutiny.

    Which is why I said "If you were a lead in a certain field, then your argument may have some merit behind it."

    You've plainly stopped reading what's being written now... maybe the bang on the head effected you more than you think ;)


  • #230
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    opinion guy wrote:
    As someone who fell off a bike without a helmet and got KO'ed for 20mins, something that would have been prevented by a helmet, I fail to see what the problem is with wearing helmets. Pardon the pun - its a no brainer that cyclists should wear helmets.
    opinion guy wrote:
    What does that anecdote prove ? Nothing. Cause its an anecdote. Not a clinical trail. An anecdote. You do understand that anecdotes are useless as an argument do you ? These things only have meaning in large numbers with statistical analysis.

    You've got yourself on the ropes there. Go on, finish yourself off, we're all behind you.


  • #231
    Mucco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 717 ✭✭✭Mucco


    TinyExplosions wrote: »
    Which is why I said "If you were a lead in a certain field, then your argument may have some merit behind it."

    Even being a lead in the field is no guarantee of merit. The paper that is most often cited as proof that helmets are effective is
    Thompson, D.C.; Rivara, F.P. and Thompson, R.S. . Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing head injury. A case-control study.
    JAMA, 1996, 276(24), 1968-1973.

    This has allowed the RSA to say: "Wearing a helmet reduces the risk of you getting a head injury by 69 to 85 per cent"

    However, the paper has been questioned for comparing two very different populations, amongst other criticisms:
    http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html

    See also Dr Dorothy L Robinson in the BMJ


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 11,997 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    The 85% is also a statistical error, corrected in a subsequent paper by the same authors. If anyone quotes it, they're blinded by zeal, ignorant, or thick.


  • #233
    TinyExplosions
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,860 ✭✭✭TinyExplosions


    Mucco wrote: »
    Even being a lead in the field is no guarantee of merit.

    Hence that all important 'may' :)


  • #234
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 11,997 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Idleater wrote: »
    Similarly (or not really) I love the "Straight on" signal which I use when approaching a roundabout that I can see to be clear "at pace".

    I have an unofficial "straight on" signal that I give road-users waiting to turn across my path.


  • #235
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,000 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    petethedrummer wrote: »
    Why don't you read the thread instead of having to get everyone to explain it to you all over again?

    I told you - I don't have time. Tsch:rolleyes: Read my posts for heavens sake:P


  • #236
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,515 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    I have an unofficial "straight on" signal that I give road-users waiting to turn across my path.

    GsSS0QrR.jpg


  • #237
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,053 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    LOL


  • #238
    Undercover Elephant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 465 ✭✭Undercover Elephant


    purethick wrote: »
    *2010 casualty figures are provisional
    :confused: Do they keep losing count of the corpses?


  • #239
    petethedrummer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,604 ✭✭✭petethedrummer


    opinion guy wrote: »
    I told you - I don't have time. Tsch:rolleyes: Read my posts for heavens sake:P
    Yet you have time to formulate some quite long questions and answers which have all been addressed before. Read the thread and you will understand noone is really anti-helmet. IT'S ANTI-COMPULSION


  • #240
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,370 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    opinion guy wrote: »
    Now slow down there. I did not say "I fell off and hit my head, if I didn't have a helmet on, I'd be dead". I fell off and DIDN'T have a helmet on and experienced an injury that I wouldn't have if I had a "a piece of polystyrene on top".

    To be fair you have no idea, the impact might have been more than enough to knock you out or the impact of the helmet on the ground could have caused your head to rotate suddenly and cause severe spinal injury, then again it might not have.

    Of all the accidents I have had, the only time I hurt my head was while wearing a helmet. In all other cases, reflexes kicked in and I shielded my head and face with my arms.

    Does this prove that wearing a helmet makes you less likely to protect yourself or if it is absent you are more likely to adjust your landing/impact to protect yourself. NO of course not, it would be my own viewpoint but I would never tell anyone that it was a fact as it would make me a liar or at the very least a terrible scientist who never learned the value of reproducibility.
    This "argument" is a farce. Basically the anti-helmet arguments can be summarised as "we don't like looking like dorks".

    I think they look cool but then I have a bald patch.

    On the notion of degrees etc. Mine is not important, it just gives me a greater appreciation for how statistics can be greatly misunderstood and how anecdotes are pure bull when it comes to proving a point. An anecdote may give you a jumping point to go into real research but stating it as fact is offensive.

    That said there are plenty out there with no degrees whose viewpoints are often superior and more well thought out than my own, the point is regardless of a piece of paper or not, facts are fact and reasonable conclusions are just that, you either have the data to back it up or you don't, if you don't then you can make deductions or plausible conclusions.

    You Sir have done neither.

    Personally, I wear a helmet but I would never recommend it be made compulsory for many of the reasons listed in the posts above that you are not bothered/don't have time to read.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 11,997 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    I'm not sure whether opinion guy is actually interested in this subject, but this is quite short and summarises well why there is scepticism about claims of helmets being highly effective:
    http://cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2026.pdf

    There may be many reasons why helmets have not turned out to be effective in Australia and New Zealand, including the very high rates of incorrectly worn helmets, risk compensation and the notion that helmets were never that effective in the first place. There might be other reasons, it might be a combination of reasons. But I remain very sceptical of how effective a few cm of expanded polystyrene can be.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement