Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

In article , SMS wrote:

LOL, in order to be successful it has to be based on real science, not
junk science. There are lots of team efforts that involve using junk
science (or junk history for that matter) to prove something.

I think you're on your own in this case though - Sorni and Ozark are
resolutely sticking to the "Facts? We don't need no stinking facts"
anti-science line.

I'm not sure whether "I have posted cites in the past. Somewhere.
I can't give a precise reference, but I have really." counts as
junk history, or just junk.

Peter Clinch wrote:
wrote:

No, not "exactly". The simple decision to wear or not wear a helmet is
not "science". It's really quite simple: "Assess, decide and ride". Why
do you seek to make a very simple decision complex?

The decision to wear one isn't, but the "assess" bit really /ought/ to
be if you want the answer with the best chance of being right.


What's the big deal? As one poster noted regarding helmets: "Can't hurt
and might help". I think that sums it up rather well.


Though you've laughed at the idea of having a library of literature on
the subject, if the same sort of resources aren't available for, say,
choosing padded shorts or not, then that's a good indication that there
are actually quite a lot of people in medicine and accident prevention
work who would disagree with your stance on the simplicity of the issue.


Sure, we have one large, vocal group screeching "Danger, danger,
*always* wear a helmet!" and one smaller, but equally strident group
screeching "Danger, danger! Helmets increase injuries! Helmets make
cycling more dangerous! Each helmat worn is a silent vote for
compulsion!"

Pro-helmet wackos and anti-helmet wackos. A pox on both houses.

wrote:

What's the big deal? As one poster noted regarding helmets: "Can't hurt
and might help". I think that sums it up rather well.

"Can help but might hurt" sums it up rather better.

--
Dave...

wrote:

What's the big deal? As one poster noted regarding helmets: "Can't hurt
and might help". I think that sums it up rather well.

But you haven't read any of the science so you can't tell the above is
inaccurate. It /is/ inaccurate, so it doesn't sum it up very well.

They /might/ help, but they really *can* hurt too. If not, how come the
serious injury rate is unchanged by increasing use of helmets?

Sure, we have one large, vocal group screeching "Danger, danger,
*always* wear a helmet!" and one smaller, but equally strident group
screeching "Danger, danger! Helmets increase injuries! Helmets make
cycling more dangerous! Each helmat worn is a silent vote for
compulsion!"

The "Danger, danger! Helmets increase injuries! Helmets make
cycling more dangerous!" is a gross misconception on your part.

Pro-helmet wackos and anti-helmet wackos. A pox on both houses.

The "anti-helmet wackos" is also a gross misconception on your part.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
wrote:

What's the big deal? As one poster noted regarding helmets: "Can't hurt
and might help". I think that sums it up rather well.

But you haven't read any of the science so you can't tell the above is
inaccurate. It /is/ inaccurate, so it doesn't sum it up very well.

They /might/ help, but they really *can* hurt too. If not, how come the
serious injury rate is unchanged by increasing use of helmets?

Sure, we have one large, vocal group screeching "Danger, danger,
*always* wear a helmet!" and one smaller, but equally strident group
screeching "Danger, danger! Helmets increase injuries! Helmets make
cycling more dangerous! Each helmat worn is a silent vote for
compulsion!"

The "Danger, danger! Helmets increase injuries! Helmets make
cycling more dangerous!" is a gross misconception on your part.

Pro-helmet wackos and anti-helmet wackos. A pox on both houses.

The "anti-helmet wackos" is also a gross misconception on your part.


Pedaling misconceptions is as much stock in trade of pro-helmet-zealots as
ignoring the science that proves them wrong.

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:39:12 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

They /might/ help, but they really *can* hurt too. If not, how come the
serious injury rate is unchanged by increasing use of helmets?

I'm glad I wasn't wearing a helmet when I went over the bars with a
half twist. Landed very flat on the road, a few stitches from sliding
on the back of my head.
When I think of landing on the protruding tail of the helmet I now
have to wear (aussie MHL) it scares me. I would have been landing on
my head/helmet before the rest of me landed rather than all at once.
Surely that would have been bad for my neck?

Andre

"Aeek" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:39:12 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

They /might/ help, but they really *can* hurt too. If not, how come the
serious injury rate is unchanged by increasing use of helmets?

I'm glad I wasn't wearing a helmet when I went over the bars with a
half twist. Landed very flat on the road, a few stitches from sliding
on the back of my head.
When I think of landing on the protruding tail of the helmet I now
have to wear (aussie MHL) it scares me. I would have been landing on
my head/helmet before the rest of me landed rather than all at once.
Surely that would have been bad for my neck?



Yes.

But of course, this is a single instance.

It is no more valid for predicting the likelyhood of injury than any of the
"my helmet saved my life" stories.

The best way to tell if helmets actually do anything to make cycling safer
is to see if the injury rates fall when the helmet-wearing rate rises.

They don't.

Aeek wrote:

When I think of landing on the protruding tail of the helmet I now
have to wear (aussie MHL) it scares me. I would have been landing on
my head/helmet before the rest of me landed rather than all at once.
Surely that would have been bad for my neck?

You can't be *sure* without a repeat control with everything else
exactly the same except for the hat... You can't have that, of course,
and even if you could I wouldn't suggest you signed up!

But it quite possibly might have been a negative in that particular
instance, is a fair summary IMHO. Though you can come up with other
scenarios where they might well help.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:27:40 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

But it quite possibly might have been a negative in that particular
instance, is a fair summary IMHO. Though you can come up with other
scenarios where they might well help.

Absolutely. Later on I did a full body and face plant into the grass
from running off the path and the helmet protected my forehead.
I broke my Rudys on my nose rather than my nose so maybe thats a case
for mandatory cycling glasses?
I could conclude that bitumen is softer than grass, that fits my
personal sample!

In article ,
Aeek wrote:

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:27:40 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

But it quite possibly might have been a negative in that particular
instance, is a fair summary IMHO. Though you can come up with other
scenarios where they might well help.

Absolutely. Later on I did a full body and face plant into the grass
from running off the path and the helmet protected my forehead.
I broke my Rudys on my nose rather than my nose so maybe thats a case
for mandatory cycling glasses?
I could conclude that bitumen is softer than grass, that fits my
personal sample!

Ah Crockey, Mate.

Maybe you should take some riding lessons and learn how to stay upright!

HAND
keep the rubber on the road.