'Organ donors' without helmets

Undercover Elephant · 28-03-2011 12:44PM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

3.Bell, lol :rolleyes: what the feck use is a bell to anyone when you can simply shout at people

I thought that until my daughter insisted that I have one. There's a school of thought that says people respond quicker to a bell than a voice because it's an unexpected sound. No idea whether this makes any difference in the real world, but there is one definite difference.

At least once a day, a stupid person steps into the Sutton-Clontarf cycle track in front of me without looking. They will get out of the way if you shout at them, but if you ring the bell you will (usually) get an acknowledgement that they are in the wrong, whereas quite often if you shout they will shout back at you. So the way I look at it is that bells help to train stupid persons to be less stupid to persons on bikes.

Now, where's my RSA research grant?

tomasrojo · 28-03-2011 12:48PM

As I said above, bells probably have some merit.

But that bells are at the top of the RSA safety list, when the cause of 70% of urban cyclist deaths (poor placing around left-turning HGVs) is at the bottom of the list is farcical.

petethedrummer · 28-03-2011 12:51PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

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

He won't read it. He has an opinion he wants to spout.

opinion guy · 28-03-2011 01:56PM

petethedrummer wrote: »

He won't read it. He has an opinion he wants to spout.

I really wish you would all stop speaking on my behalf and making assumptions.

I won't read it because I don't download random documents to my computer off of internet forums. I am however very interested in the topic since I cycle. But like I said I don't have time right now. I simply wanted to know what the arguments against it are. I'm not very swayed by those arguments. - although I do agree with one thing - cycling helmets could well use a substantial redesign.

petethedrummer · 28-03-2011 02:07PM

opinion guy wrote: »

I am however very interested in the topic since I cycle.

All the arguments are contained in the thread.

opinion guy wrote: »

But like I said I don't have time right now.

Read it when you have time.

opinion guy wrote: »

I simply wanted to know what the arguments against it are.

All the arguments are contained in the thread. Read it when you have time.

TinyExplosions · 28-03-2011 02:07PM

opinion guy wrote: »

I really wish you would all stop speaking on my behalf and making assumptions.

I won't read it because I don't download random documents to my computer off of internet forums. I am however very interested in the topic since I cycle. But like I said I don't have time right now. I simply wanted to know what the arguments against it are. I'm not very swayed by those arguments. - although I do agree with one thing - cycling helmets could well use a substantial redesign.

We're making assumptions based on what you've posted.

You asked what the main points of the 'nay' campaign were in regards to helmet usage, and when you were told that there isn't one, only a "It's up to the individual to decide", you ignored it and kept on making your own assumptions that there was a whole load of people on this thread claiming that helmets were not effective, when that wasn't mentioned in the thread at all.

There's no argument meant to sway you (unless you count the one about not making sweeping generalizations that if you'd worn a helmet the time you bruised your bonce you'd have been fine).

I'll say it one more time. Nobody on this thread has said that helmets do not save lives under certain circumstances. All they have pointed out is the errors in assuming that wearing a helmet will remove the possibility of head injury in every case of a rider having an accident, which is what a lot of people seem to think (yourself included according to your own post), and said that the knee jerk reaction of making helmet wearing a legal compulsion is wrong.

That make it any clearer for you, or are there some semantics in my post that you'd like to jump on in order to ignore the main point?

BostonB · 28-03-2011 02:29PM

opinion guy wrote: »

I really wish you would all stop speaking on my behalf and making assumptions.

I won't read it because I don't download random documents to my computer off of internet forums. I am however very interested in the topic since I cycle. But like I said I don't have time right now. I simply wanted to know what the arguments against it are. I'm not very swayed by those arguments. - although I do agree with one thing - cycling helmets could well use a substantial redesign.

Sorry I can't be bothered reading that. But you're wrong.

kumate_champ07 · 28-03-2011 03:05PM

opinion guy wrote: »

I really wish you would all stop speaking on my behalf and making assumptions.

I won't read it because I don't download random documents to my computer off of internet forums. I am however very interested in the topic since I cycle. But like I said I don't have time right now. I simply wanted to know what the arguments against it are. I'm not very swayed by those arguments. - although I do agree with one thing - cycling helmets could well use a substantial redesign.

here:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcyclehelmets.org%2Fpapers%2Fc2026.pdf

Harrybelafonte · 28-03-2011 03:33PM

opinion guy wrote: »

I really wish you would all stop speaking on my behalf and making assumptions.

I won't read it because I don't download random documents to my computer off of internet forums. I am however very interested in the topic since I cycle. But like I said I don't have time right now. I simply wanted to know what the arguments against it are. I'm not very swayed by those arguments. - although I do agree with one thing - cycling helmets could well use a substantial redesign.

You are quite likely the laziest troll I've ever come across.

opinion guy · 28-03-2011 03:36PM

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

You are quite likely the laziest troll I've ever come across.

Hahahah. I'm not sure if that a compliment or an insult.

I'm not trolling. Its a topic I'm interested in and it has made my shortlist to read up on properly - maybe in the summer. However I will say this you are all unbelieveably biased against helmets on here.

TinyExplosions · 28-03-2011 03:38PM

opinion guy wrote: »

However I will say this you are all unbelieveably biased against helmets on here.

Ok, you see, now you've just shown that you're clearly not reading anything that's been posted on this thread, even since your first reply.

Nobody here is biased against helmets only against the idea of a law being brought in to make them mandatory

opinion guy · 28-03-2011 03:40PM

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

here:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcyclehelmets.org%2Fpapers%2Fc2026.pdf

This paper is unreferenced, and does not include proper statistics, confidence intervals, ttests etc. For all we know the author just made it all up

Mucco · 28-03-2011 03:49PM

opinion guy wrote: »

This paper is unreferenced, and does not include proper statistics, confidence intervals, ttests etc. For all we know the author just made it all up

Dorothy Robinson has published extensively on bike helmets. If you are genuinely interested, I suggest you do some lit searches. If not, troll away.....

CramCycle · 28-03-2011 03:54PM

opinion guy wrote: »

This paper is unreferenced, and does not include proper statistics, confidence intervals, ttests etc. For all we know the author just made it all up

A fair point that you cannot find references there but this was a response to another article. At the bottom of the response you find the paper that Robinson was using as a reference and contained therein the references that were used to write that paper:

http://www.roble.net/marquis/cached/agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html

To be fair, some people are jumping on the anti "Opinion Guy" wagon by claiming you wouldn't look at the data, now that you have and I have provided references, you can have a second look. As the majority are saying though (nay telling you), few if any are anti-helmet people on here, they are anti compulsion, BIG difference.

RobFowl · 28-03-2011 04:02PM

opinion guy wrote: »

However I will say this you are all unbelieveably biased against helmets on here.

Just to add my tuppence worth. I agree with Tiny and Cram that most of us here are pro helmet and would wear them (personally have not been on a bike without one in 20 years).
It the compulsory wearing of them that I am against.
The NSW data and experience of every where that has made wearing them the law was that the numbers cycling decreased substantially with out a relative reduction in injuries/death.

opinion guy · 28-03-2011 04:02PM

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Ok, you see, now you've just shown that you're clearly not reading anything that's been posted on this thread, even since your first reply.

Nobody here is biased against helmets only against the idea of a law being brought in to make them mandatory

No YOU are arguing about choice vrs legislation. others are very clearly saying helmets are rubbish and decrease the number of cyclists or worsen injuries.

Mucco wrote: »

Dorothy Robinson has published extensively on bike helmets. If you are genuinely interested, I suggest you do some lit searches. If not, troll away.....

Ok I just checked Cramcycle's link

Dorothy Robinson wrote:

The fact that little or no obvious effect can be seen in hospital data does not imply cyclists choosing to wear lightweight, comfortable, well fitting helmets, will not benefit, provided they do not ride on more dangerous roads or take less care. The relatively small effects from helmet laws must, however, be contrasted with the large effect on numbers of cyclists and better responses from other road safety campaigns.

Except the thing about helmets decreasing numbers of cyclists does not hold true in a recent study:
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/16/4/219.abstract?sid=8ab9ad91-8dfc-4c05-be79-a9077e5c4052

Beasty · 28-03-2011 04:09PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Except the thing about helmets decreasing numbers of cyclists does not hold true in a recent study:
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/16/4/219.abstract?sid=8ab9ad91-8dfc-4c05-be79-a9077e5c4052

And here is the article that basically shoots that study down

TinyExplosions · 28-03-2011 04:09PM

opinion guy wrote: »

No YOU are arguing about choice vrs legislation. others are very clearly saying helmets are rubbish and decrease the number of cyclists or worsen injuries.

Who on here has said they are rubbish? (seems like you may have read a bit more of this thread if you can say that)

Certainly there is some evidence floating around that says in certain circumstances they can contribute to injury, and the evidence from Australia (where helmet wearing is compulsory) shows that mandatory use decreases the number of cyclists.

Neither of these points have been used by anyone to say that helmets don't save lives, or that they are useless. They are all used as counters to the sort of silly statement that you made that are along the lines of "anyone who doesn't wear a helmet is an idiot", and to back up the argument that helmet use shouldn't be compulsory

CramCycle · 28-03-2011 04:24PM

opinion guy wrote: »

No YOU are arguing about choice vrs legislation. others are very clearly saying helmets are rubbish and decrease the number of cyclists or worsen injuries.

I don't recall anyone saying they are rubbish but I am open to correction, the reason most are opposed to legislation is that there is data indicating that it leads to a fall in cyclist numbers which in turn leads to less of the supposed "safety in numbers" theory and also leads to increases in the cost of state healthcare as an increasingly unfit population age (we are the second most obese nation in Europe AFAIK)

Ok I just checked Cramcycle's link

The quote you use basically agrees with everything myself and others have said multiple times.

Except the thing about helmets decreasing numbers of cyclists does not hold true in a recent study:
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/16/4/219.abstract?sid=8ab9ad91-8dfc-4c05-be79-a9077e5c4052

The data here seems skewed in that it in no way accounts for the general increase in cyclists numbers in developed countries over recent years, when it could be argued that there has been a lack of uptake ie a decrease of a number that will now never exist.

Also it appears the numbers have dropped slightly, as well as the fact that many appear to still not use their helmets while cycling and not get punished for it which the authors admit is a limitation of the study:

One important limitation of our study is the potential for ecological confounding. Differences in helmet use cannot be solely attributed to differences in provincial helmet legislation and are likely influenced by variation in the enforcement of the helmet law, incentives for helmet use, educational campaigns, and attitudes towards bicycle use and helmets.

Because this study relies on self-reported data, it is also vulnerable to misclassification bias. Helmet use may have been over-reported to a greater extent where legislation was more widespread. Though possible, the published literature suggests that self-reported helmet use overestimates actual helmet use to the same extent under different types of helmet legislation.22

tomasrojo · 28-03-2011 04:33PM

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1201.html

The authors therefore conclude that provincial helmet legislation in Canada has not led to the sharp declines in cycling that were seen in Australia and New Zealand following enforcement of cycle helmet legislation[1],[2].

The data presented do not support these conclusions. There are in fact sharp falls in cycling after legislation evident in the data, which the authors do not draw attention to. They also assume a causal relationship between legislation and helmet use, but this assumption is unsafe. Experience shows that helmet laws will only impact long term helmet use and cycling levels materially if they are enforced.

The authors' summary of evidence on helmet effectiveness is consistently biased towards studies supporting one view. Unreliable results from case-control studies are put forward whilst later population-level studies are ignored. The population-level studies showed no evidence of serious injury reduction due to mass helmet use. It is now recognised that the case-control studies that make up the Cochrane Review were seriously confounded by social factors.

The authors do present data showing that cycling is a safe activity, yet they fail to ask the obvious question: if cycling is not an unduly risky activity, why are bicycle helmet laws being passed at all?

opinion guy · 28-03-2011 04:34PM

So let me ask a question here then. If (and I say if, I don't accept it without doing a lit review which will be June at the earliest), but IF compulsory helmets lead to decreased rates of cycling - what is the puported mechanism by which this happens ?

tomasrojo · 28-03-2011 04:41PM

opinion guy wrote: »

So let me ask a question here then. If (and I say if, I don't accept it without doing a lit review which will be June at the earliest), but IF compulsory helmets lead to decreased rates of cycling - what is the puported mechanism by which this happens ?

Off the top of my head:

Young women don't like the way they look
Teenagers don't like the way they look
Parents start to think cycling is dangerous, akin to motorcycling
Poorer families who previously passed a bike down from sibling to sibling stop cycling because helmets are a new expense and an expense too far
Bike-share schemes become unworkable
People who might borrow a bike to make a journey now can't do so without finding a helmet that fits them
Some people find helmets make their heads overheat, making concentration difficult

I think the biggest falls are among young women and teenagers.

When Conor Egleston was campaigning for a mandatory helmet law last year, he implicitly made the assumption that people how cycle as a mode of transport are cycling enthusiasts who would not mind buying a helmet. That's not really true. Some people are using it as a mode of transport because it's convenient for their most common journeys. For some of those carrying around a helmet makes the journey that bit more inconvenient and they take the bus, or some other option.

EDIT: I tried the reckless step of downloading stuff at random from the internet and this site had a nice formulation for the discouragement: less convenient, less fashionable and less comfortable

http://hubpages.com/hub/Pros-and-Cons-of-Mandatory-Bicycle-Helmet-Laws-Whats-the-Evidence

CramCycle · 28-03-2011 04:48PM

opinion guy wrote: »

So let me ask a question here then. If (and I say if, I don't accept it without doing a lit review which will be June at the earliest), but IF compulsory helmets lead to decreased rates of cycling - what is the puported mechanism by which this happens ?

There are several possible reasons but none I can prove or point to evidence of.

Cost
Comfort
No perceived increase in safety
Gives the impression of a dangerous activity and makes people doubt the benefits of cycling
Annoyance at the idea of COMPULSION for a statistically accepted safe activity

Are a few that spring to mind, I'm sure looks plays a part in some peoples mind as I think you pointed out earlier, never bothered me though, looks wise for reasons I indicated earlier, it works well for me

RobFowl · 28-03-2011 04:52PM

This is one of the clearist reviews I''ve seen and it suggests the following based on actual data. The reasons why legal compulsion reduced the number cycling are not fully understood but are proven

Case-control studies suggest cyclists who choose to wear helmets generally have fewer head injuries than non-wearers
Before and after data show enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries
This contradiction may be due to risk compensation, incorrect helmet wearing, reduced safety in numbers, or incorrect adjustment for confounders in case-control studies
Governments should focus on factors such as speeding, drink-driving, failure to obey road rules, poor road design, and cycling without lights at night

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/

opinion guy · 28-03-2011 04:58PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

Off the top of my head:
Young women don't like the way they look

Teenagers don't like the way they look

Parents start to think cycling is dangerous, akin to motorcycling

Poorer families who previously passed a bike down from sibling to sibling stop cycling because helmets are a new expense and an expense too far

Bike-share schemes become unworkable

People who might borrow a bike to make a journey now can't do so without finding a helmet that fits them

Some people find helmets make their heads overheat, making concentration difficult

I think the biggest falls are among young women and teenagers.

When Conor Egleston was campaigning for a mandatory helmet law last year, he implicitly made the assumption that people how cycle as a mode of transport are cycling enthusiasts who would not mind buying a helmet. That's not really true. Some people are using it as a mode of transport because it's convenient for their most common journeys. For some of those carrying around a helmet makes the journey that bit more inconvenient and they take the bus, or some other option.

EDIT: I tried the reckless step of downloading stuff at random from the internet and this site had a nice formulation for the discouragement: less convenient, less fashionable and less comfortable

http://hubpages.com/hub/Pros-and-Cons-of-Mandatory-Bicycle-Helmet-Laws-Whats-the-Evidence

Ah yeah so as I suspected we are back to - because they look dorky.

See this is my whole problem with this argument. This a societal and culturally imposed perception - that bike helmets are dorky. As such it s a perception that can be changed. It was widely considered that smoking was cool. Is it now ? No. (well that depends on what country you are in - but the point is these things can be changed). It was also once widely seen as restricting to wear seatbelts and many people refused. Is it now???? Hell no. After being made mandatory, severl PR campaigns and proper enforcement it now just seems idiotic not to wear a seatbelt.

Cowtowing to not making helmets mandatory cause people don't like them is only reinforcing that stereotype. You need to change the perception so that people don't think helmet = "dorky" to helmet = "smart".

It should be made mandatory, giving a sexy PR campaign and enforced. After a time wearing a helmet will not be seen as dorky, it will be seen as normal. But not if we continue to cowtow to looking cool.

Of course, it wouldn't hurt to sex up the auld helmets a bit. They could learn from some of the ski helmets (which are both more sturdy and look better).

Lumen · 28-03-2011 05:02PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Ah yeah so as I suspected we are back to - because they look dorky.

No, that's just one aspect you happen to have fixated on.

opinion guy · 28-03-2011 05:03PM

Lumen wrote: »

No, that's just one aspect you happen to have fixated on.

Thats nice.
Counter my argument.

petethedrummer · 28-03-2011 05:05PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Ah yeah so as I suspected we are back to - because they look dorky.

No we're not... thats part of it. Can you read the underlined parts of the following out loud to yourself?

tomasrojo wrote: »

Off the top of my head:
Young women don't like the way they look

Teenagers don't like the way they look

Parents start to think cycling is dangerous, akin to motorcycling

Poorer families who previously passed a bike down from sibling to sibling stop cycling because helmets are a new expense and an expense too far

Bike-share schemes become unworkable

People who might borrow a bike to make a journey now can't do so without finding a helmet that fits them

Some people find helmets make their heads overheat, making concentration difficult

CramCycle wrote: »

There are several possible reasons but none I can prove or point to evidence of.
[*]Cost
[*]Comfort
[*]No perceived increase in safety
[*]Gives the impression of a dangerous activity and makes people doubt the benefits of cycling
[*]Annoyance at the idea of COMPULSION for a statistically accepted safe activity

CramCycle · 28-03-2011 05:10PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Thats nice.
Counter my argument.

To be fair there were 10 possible reasons given above and you fixated on one.

That said my favourite image will always be this one:

Now to be fair this is a mis representation of the data as it gives no indication are the data sets related or wether its due to increased numbers leads to increased vigilance by other road users, general road conditions and generally better adherence to the law.

petethedrummer · 28-03-2011 05:12PM

Opinion Guy, do you wear a helmet while driving? Because I know someone who died of a head injury in a car.

'Organ donors' without helmets

Comments