My helmet saved me, and broke

[Mikefule]

Re: Re: My helmet saved me, and broke

Originally posted by Ian Smith
[B]
But they don’t - when they are made compulsory, teh rate of cyclist
killed and seriously injured goes up (in every jurisdiction that has
tried it and enforced it).

In teh UK, as the rate of cyclist helmet wearing has sky-rocketed
compared to that of pedestrian helmet wearing, the relative accident
rate has not changed dramatically (in fact, it has drifted in teh
wrong direction).
[/B]

Regardless of whether these statements are true, and regardless of whether they are based on a fair interpretation of statistics, they are totally irrelevant to the discussion in this forum. This is a unicycle forum. The type of accidents unicyclists have will be very different from the type of accidents bicyclists have.

Bicyclists are, in the main, riding from A to B, mixing it with pedestrians and motor traffic. Unicyclists, in the main, aren’t. Bicyclists usually fall off forwards or sideways and get tangled in their machines, or they are knocked off by motor vehicles. Unicyclists usually fall off at fairly low speed, but suddenly, when they lose control as a result of a failed manoeuvre.

As far as I am aware, no government has ever published accident statistics for unicyclists.

So we can only look at one case: A unicyclist falls off and bangs his head. Is he better off with a helmet or without one? There are many circumstances in which he will be better off with a helmet, and very few circumstances in which he would be better off without one.

[ChangingLINKS.com]

. . . . alright, everyone forgive Mikefule for the inaccuracies in this last post. Just overlook it.

Thanks.

[system]

Re: My helmet saved me, and broke

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 03:43:38 -0500> Mikefule wrote
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > *
> > But they don’t - when they are made compulsory, teh rate of cyclist
> > killed and seriously injured goes up (in every jurisdiction that has
> > tried it and enforced it).
> >
> > In teh UK, as the rate of cyclist helmet wearing has sky-rocketed
> > compared to that of pedestrian helmet wearing, the relative accident
> > rate has not changed dramatically (in fact, it has drifted in teh
> > wrong direction).
> > *
>
> Regardless of whether these statements are true, and regardless of
> whether they are based on a fair interpretation of statistics, they are
> totally irrelevant to the discussion in this forum. This is a unicycle
> forum. The type of accidents unicyclists have will be very different
> from the type of accidents bicyclists have.

No, they are not irrelevant to the discussion, because they were made
in direct response to an assertion that helmets, on the whole, must be
a good thing, that it is “obvious” that they will do more good than
harm. If that were the case, it would be equally obvious whenever
bicycle helmets are worn.

If that were actually the case, then this obvious benefit would also
show up in bicycle accident statistics. Or are you really claiming
that bicycle helmets will work better for unicycling than for the
activity they were designed for? That would be surprising, given
that pretty much everyone else is saying exactly the opposite.

> So we can only look at one case: A unicyclist falls off and bangs his
> head. Is he better off with a helmet or without one? There are many
> circumstances in which he will be better off with a helmet, and very few
> circumstances in which he would be better off without one.

Again, you state as fact something that is (at best) your personal
guess (and one that many people disagree with). YOU GUESS there are
many circumstances in which he will be better, and you GUESS there are
very few circumstances in which he will be worse off. However, those
GUESSES seem to contradict the real-world observed performance of
helmets on bicyclists, so it is difficult to see a rational
justification for them.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |

[Mikefule]

It is difficult to see a rational justification for arguing that a piece of equipment designed to protect the wearer will not do more good than harm in most circumstances.

As for my guesses, they are based on some knowledge and experience. I was a keen bicyclist for many years, and an active member of the Cyclists’ Touring Club and the Tandem Club. During that time, I not only rode daily in heavy traffic in all weathers, but I had my fair share of knocks and spills, ending up in hospital once, as did my then wife in a separate accident.

I am also a motorcyclist (these days a scooterist) and have followed the very similar helmet debate in motorcycling circles. There are still motorcyclists who argue against helmets, rather than against compulsion. You also get the helmet debate in rock climbing circles too. And no doubt in horse riding and many other sports.

More to the point, I’ve spent the last 24 years of my life working in an insurance claims office. Part of my job is reading Coroner’s reports and Police accident investigators’ reports. Part of it is reading medical reports. Part of it is assessing how much damages to pay to people who have suffered severe injuries in road accidents.

Helmets are not perfect. Nevertheless, wearing a helmet will tend to reduce the severity of your injuries, or even prevent injuries altogether, in the majority of accidents in which your head comes into contact with a hard object. In a number of cases, the helmet will make no difference whatsoever, and in a minority of cases, the helmet may even exacerbate or cause injuries. As an item of safety equipment, helmets do more good than harm. To argue otherwise is irrational and irresponsible.

To argue against compulsion is fair enough, and to argue for one type or style of helmet in preference to another is useful and cosntructive.

[Seager]

I wear a hat that I made by hot glueing shards of broken glass dipped in the HIV to it. I think it makes me safer. I’ve never falled and hit my head anyway, so…

I also put nails on my pedals. They face up.

I have an air seat filled with brown recluse spiders. It’s the most comfortable thing, EVER! It’s like a party under my pants and everyone’s invited - 'cept they’re pissed about it so they bite me in the *****.

(it’s bigger now!)

I do these things to look cool.

[system]

Re: My helmet saved me, and broke

On Mon, 29 Aug, Mikefule <> wrote:
>
> It is difficult to see a rational justification for arguing that a piece
> of equipment designed to protect the wearer will not do more good than
> harm in most circumstances.

You don’t need a rational justification for arguing it - you can see
that it’s teh case. It is not necesary to explain why it happens,
merely to observe that it does. Having observed that it does, it is
irresponsible to pretend that it doesn’t, and doubly irresponsible to
repeatedly assert that it doesn’t.

Just because you don’t understand or can’t explain something, it
doesn’t mean it’s not true.

> Helmets are not perfect. Nevertheless, wearing a helmet will tend to
> reduce the severity of your injuries,

… you guess, but the real world accident rates say otherwise.

> As an item of safety equipment, helmets do more good than harm.

Another guess contradicted by the real world statistics.

> To argue otherwise is irrational and irresponsible.

I’m not trying to convinvce you otherwise. There’s no need to
convince anyone otherwise, the ‘otherwise’ is simply fact. Over the
period that the helmet wearing rate has risen dramatically, the
serious injury rate has risen slightly.

If your assertion that helmets do more good than harm is true, how can
this be?

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |

[Seager]

Re: Re: My helmet saved me, and broke

Originally posted by Ian Smith
[B]On Mon, 29 Aug, Mikefule <> wrote:[color=blue]
Over the
period that the helmet wearing rate has risen dramatically, the
serious injury rate has risen slightly.

If your assertion that helmets do more good than harm is true, how can
this be? [/B]

The problem here is that correlation != causation. You are failing to look at all the variables. Maybe the car driving rate increased. Maybe amateur bikers increased (lance armstrong effect?). Maybe more people started biking to work on busy streets because of oil prices. Maybe more soccer moms bought SUVs they can’t drive and are hitting bikers. Maybe the average biking age dropped. Obviously something was happening in these areas to make helmet wearing compulsory, so maybe whatever drove those laws also had some other random effect causing more accidents.

Who knows, but the fact is it’s MORE likely that helmets do more good than harm. Your “evidence” of the opposite is bunk because it fails to consider the entire story. Anyone trained in science should be able to see holes in it from miles away. Furthermore, when sketchy evidence goes up against solid logic (hitting your bare head hurts more than hitting your head when it’s covered in foam) then the solid logic wins. It’s not conclusive, but is sure is enough to throw out a study that makes conclusions without looking at the big picture.

Upon re-reading I see my point my have been lost due to my verbosity. I’ll summerize. You found some fact. That fact has SEVERAL possible explanations, most not looked into. One of the possible explanations further someone’s agenda. The same possible explantation is contrary to common sense. Therefore it is likely that this explanation is false and one of the other explanations or combination of explanations is correct.

[onewheeldave]

Re: Re: My helmet saved me, and broke

Originally posted by Ian Smith

I’m not trying to convinvce you otherwise. There’s no need to
convince anyone otherwise, the ‘otherwise’ is simply fact. Over the
period that the helmet wearing rate has risen dramatically, the
serious injury rate has risen slightly.

If your assertion that helmets do more good than harm is true, how can
this be?

Ian Smith, you seem to be saying that many of those supporting helmet wear are making invalid assumptions ie seing it as ‘obvious’ that they offer protection, when, in your eyes, there is no real evidence.

So, when someone says it’s ‘obvious’ that, in a head impacting the ground scenario, a helmet will tend to protect the head; it s analogous to someone in the 12th century believing the earth to be flat because it is ‘obvious’.

Is that a correct summary of your opinion?

You yourself seem to believe that helmet use is actually, at best, inneffective, and, at worst, may actually increase injuries.

You’ve concluded this because of studies which have shown that, in places where helmets have been made compulsory, injuries have actually risen.

I’ve got some opinions on this, but, before doing so, i’m hoping that you can verify the above (or ut me staright if I’ve misunderstood anything)

and, if possible, also clarify, the breakdown of injury increases in those studies ie taking three categories of 1 deaths, 2 serious injuries, 3 non-serious injuries- how have each of those categories been affected. I realise you may not have such info, but i think it is relevant as, for example, a rise in injuries could actually be caused by helmets doing their job because people who may, previous to helmet wearing, have died, will now be pushed into the ‘injuries’ categories, leading to an increase in the injury stats.

[onetrack]

Originally posted by Seager
[B]I wear a hat that I made by hot glueing shards of broken glass dipped in the HIV to it. I think it makes me safer. I’ve never falled and hit my head anyway, so…

I also put nails on my pedals. They face up.

I have an air seat filled with brown recluse spiders. It’s the most comfortable thing, EVER! It’s like a party under my pants and everyone’s invited - 'cept they’re pissed about it so they bite me in the *****.

(it’s bigger now!)

I do these things to look cool. [/B]

no way! you must look awesome!

that is exactly why i don’t wear a helmet. it makes me look really cool.

also, i don’t wear one of those footbal chest protectors. not wearing one of those makes me look sweet.

I also don’t wear these, cause not wearing them, showes people what’s up.

but what really makes me look neato is, you know those neck braces that drag racers wear? yeah, i dont wear one of those. That reminds me, i also don’t wear a fire proof suit I guess it’s because i am just too cool for school.

I’d try that spiders in the air seat thing, but air seats suck.

[system]

Re: My helmet saved me, and broke

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Seager <> wrote:
>
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > *On Mon, 29 Aug, Mikefule <> wrote:[color=blue]
> > Over the
> > period that the helmet wearing rate has risen dramatically, the
> > serious injury rate has risen slightly.
> >
> > If your assertion that helmets do more good than harm is true, how
> > can this be? *
>
> The problem here is that correlation != causation. You are failing to
> look at all the variables.

No, actually it’s the pro-helmet-compulsion people and the ‘helmet
must do good’ people that are failing to look at it. Occam’s razor.
I’m not claiming any causation - they are - they are claiming wearing
a hat causes a reduction in injury severity.

Let me summarise:
Lots of people wear hats - the accident rate is not affected.
Simplest explanation: wearing a hat does not affect accident rate.

Simple. Coherent. Logical.
No problem whatsoever with any scientific principle.
What do you say is wrong with this explanation?

If anyone wants to propose a more complex explanation, it is they that
should be justifying it, and explaining why the simple explanation is
not valid. It’s a basic premise of science - the simpler an
explanation that explains the observations the better.

> Who knows, but the fact is it’s MORE likely that helmets do more good
> than harm.

What evidence do you have for claiming this as fact? Prove it.

The whole point is that it is NOT fact that wearing a helmet does more
good than harm. If it is fact, prove it. Must be easy, surely?

> Anyone trained in science should be able to see holes in it from
> miles away.

Really? What hole is there in my explanation set out above?

IF helmets on average do NOT do more good than harm, then all the
statistics are consistent and everything is coherent. What is the
logical flaw in this argument? Please explain, it must be easy - you
claim to be able to see it from miles away.

Why is my simple explanation (set out above) patently wrong,
and your complex but unexplainable one right?

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |

[system]

Re: My helmet saved me, and broke

On Mon, 29 Aug, onewheeldave <> wrote:
>
> Ian Smith wrote:
> >
> > I’m not trying to convinvce you otherwise. There’s no need to
> > convince anyone otherwise, the ‘otherwise’ is simply fact. Over the
> > period that the helmet wearing rate has risen dramatically, the
> > serious injury rate has risen slightly.
> >
> > If your assertion that helmets do more good than harm is true, how
> > can this be?
>
> Ian Smith, you seem to be saying that many of those supporting helmet
> wear are making invalid assumptions ie seing it as ‘obvious’ that they
> offer protection, when, in your eyes, there is no real evidence.

Not quite - the objection is that the evidence shows the opposite -
increasing helmet wearing (both voluntarily and by mandating it)
increases the rate of serious injury to cyclists.

> So, when someone says it’s ‘obvious’ that, in a head impacting the
> ground scenario, a helmet will tend to protect the head; it s analogous
> to someone in the 12th century believing the earth to be flat because it
> is ‘obvious’.
>
> Is that a correct summary of your opinion?

It’s analogous, yes.

> You yourself seem to believe that helmet use is actually, at best,
> inneffective, and, at worst, may actually increase injuries.

No, I’m saying that at population level, increased helmet wearing rate
DOES correlate with an increase the rate of serious injuries.

> You’ve concluded this because of studies which have shown that, in
> places where helmets have been made compulsory, injuries have actually
> risen.

And also where helmet wearing has risen without compulsion, the
serious injury rate for cyclists has not tracked that for pedestrians,
whereas before anyone wore helmets, the rates tracked each other quite
consistently.

That is, over time, the pedestrian injury rate fluctuates, but is on a
long-term downwards trend (at least in the UK). When no-one wore
helmets, the cyclist rate closely tracked the pedestrian rate (but at
a different rate). Since cycle helmets have become more common, the
cyclist and pedestrian rates have diverged, with the cyclist rate
showing less improvement than pedestrian rate, suggesting something is
making cyclists relatively less safe - and this ‘something’ started
happening at just about the time that cyclists started wearing
helmets.

> and, if possible, also clarify, the breakdown of injury increases in
> those studies ie taking three categories of 1 deaths, 2 serious
> injuries, 3 non-serious injuries- how have each of those categories been
> affected. I realise you may not have such info, but i think it is
> relevant as, for example, a rise in injuries could actually be caused by
> helmets doing their job because people who may, previous to helmet
> wearing, have died, will now be pushed into the ‘injuries’ categories,
> leading to an increase in the injury stats.

No, that does not explain it - the rate figures in question are ‘ksi’
which is ‘killed or seriously injured’. Converting a death to a
serious injury does not push the person into the category (or out of
it).

I don’t have a breakdown of minor injuries - it’s the ksi rate that is
generally recorded long term.

As it happens, I expect helmets will have a beneficial effect on
minor injuries. I believe helmets are very good at protecting against
minor but painful and inconvenient (and maybe even scarring) injuries
(eg skin loss, blood-loss). However, none of the mandatory helmet law
proponents campaign for helmets in order to protect against painful
non-life-threatening injury, at the risk of increased death or serious
injury. I also observe that I have no substantiated basis for this
belief, so if someone came up with some figures that claimed to show
otherwise, I would examine them very carefully - I wouldn’t discard
them out of hand because it’s “obvious” that they must be wrong.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |

[One_on_one]

This Pro / Con helmet discussion is like listening to a top 40 radio station. We keep hearing the same thing over and over again. It’s really quite nauseating.

In the future, can’t references be made to previous posts with the points that each one is trying to make?!

[Mikefule]

Originally posted by One on one
This Pro / Con helmet discussion is like listening to a top 40 radio station. We keep hearing the same thing over and over again. It’s really quite nauseating.

I agree. The only reason I’ve felt drawn to respond on this thread so many times is because I wouldn’t want some kid taking what they read here as “justification” for not wearing a helmet, and then ending up injured.

A search of previous posts reveals that the most controversial of the posters on this thread has at least posted on a few other threads without provoking controversy, otherwise I would have assumed him to be simply a troll.

My last post on this thread.

[Irideonone]

Re: Re: My helmet saved me, and broke

Here we go again…

Originally posted by Ian Smith
Why is my simple explanation (set out above) patently wrong,

Possibly because all your conclusions are based on conclusions in reports based on statistics, not on actual facts (statistics are not in themselves facts). This thread was started by steveyo writing about a fact (BTW steveyo glad your OK)

There’s an exercise you can do (I did it many years ago) where you write two reports based on the same data (statistics, figures etc.) with the aim that the conclusions of the reports will both be logically correct yet oppose each other. The lesson? Don’t trust reports (something all too apparent these days).

At this point maybe I should state my educational qualifications, or not.

[system]

Re: My helmet saved me, and broke

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:31:34 -0500, Irideonone <> wrote:
>
> Here we go again
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > Why is my simple explanation (set out above) patently wrong,
>
> Possibly because all your conclusions are based on conclusions in
> reports based on statistics, not on actual facts (statistics are not in
> themselves facts). This thread was started by steveyo writing about a
> fact (BTW steveyo glad your OK)

Statistics can be facts. Just because you can confound by using
statistics does not mean all statistics are automatically misleading.

The only facts in teh opening post were that he fell off and his
helmet broke. The conclusion he drew was speculation about what the
consequence would have been had he not geen wearing a helmet.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |

[Duffle]

Have you posted a link to this study, rather than just talking about it? I’m curious to see it firsthand…

[system]

Re: My helmet saved me, and broke

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:05:22 -0500, Duffle <> wrote:
>
> Have you posted a link to this study, rather than just talking about it?
> I’m curious to see it firsthand…

If you mean the cyclist v. pedestrian casualty rates, the easiest
place to read it is http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2018.pdf
Note particularly the graph at the bottom of the first page. While
this particular write-up is not a peer-reviewed paper (as presented)
the references all are, and the basic observations regarding
‘accident’ severity are from UK official statistics.

If you want to see the same effect (or absence of it) in US
statistics you can do so at http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/kunich.html.
For Canadian, try http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/fatals.html. It doesn’t
seem to be a specifically UK effect.

regards, Ian Smith

|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |

[Seager]

Re: Re: My helmet saved me, and broke

Originally posted by Ian Smith

<snip>

You were making the claim that helmet wearing does more harm than good, and I was saying your evidence doesn’t support that. And the simplest explanation for your evidence is that a helmet does good but other factors contributed to accident severety, possibly the same factors that fueled the creation of the law in the first place.

The explanation that covering your head in foam makes the accident worse or is inconsequentional, as you assert, IS NOT the simplest because that infers that all the scientist researching and manufacturing helmets are wrong, which would then infer that the modern physics that they studied in school is wrong, etc etc. That’s by no means a simpler explanation as you assert, even though you do a good job pretending it is.

[entropy]

Re: Re: My helmet saved me, and broke

Originally posted by Ian Smith
[B]On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:05:22 -0500, Duffle <> wrote:
>
> Have you posted a link to this study, rather than just talking about it?
> I’m curious to see it firsthand…

If you mean the cyclist v. pedestrian casualty rates, the easiest
place to read it is http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2018.pdf
Note particularly the graph at the bottom of the first page. While
this particular write-up is not a peer-reviewed paper (as presented)
the references all are, and the basic observations regarding
‘accident’ severity are from UK official statistics.

If you want to see the same effect (or absence of it) in US
statistics you can do so at http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/kunich.html.
For Canadian, try http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/fatals.html. It doesn’t
seem to be a specifically UK effect.

Ok, that’s a bit better. Now I see where some of these numbers are coming from.

I don’t, however, think those studies are drawing proper conclusions based upon the data presented. The statistics used are simply broad-spectrum fatalities, and aren’t looking at fatalities due to head injury. This leaves a rather gaping hole.

To get a clearer idea of what is happening, we need to know what percentage of total cyclist fatalities or injuries occur because of severe head trauma, and plot those results alongside helmet use.

[Irideonone]

Re: Re: My helmet saved me, and broke

Originally posted by Ian Smith
Statistics can be facts. Just because you can confound by using
statistics does not mean all statistics are automatically misleading.

Statistics: The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling.

Fact: Something that has actual existence; a matter of objective reality

A statistic is not, as I said, a fact, even if the statistic was initially derived from a collection of facts it is still only a derived numerical datum.

Originally posted by Ian Smith

The only facts in teh opening post were that he fell off and his
helmet broke. The conclusion he drew was speculation about what the
consequence would have been had he not geen wearing a helmet.

The facts were that steveyo fell off, hit his helmet (front right edge), the helmets foam compressed & cracked, he didn’t injure his head but he did injure his thumb and knee. I think the conclusion that he derived had he not been wearing a helmet is perfectly logical and very highly probable. What would your conclusion be had he not been wearing a helmet? Would he have had fewer injuries or more?