My helmet saved me, and broke

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.

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.


--
Mikefule - Roland Hope School of Unicycling

The poor lack much, the greedy, everything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikefule's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/879
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900

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

Thanks.


--
ChangingLINKS.com - member

Wishing you Happiness, Joy and Laughter,
Drew Brown
'Changing LINKS' (http://www.ChangingLINKS.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ChangingLINKS.com's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/5468
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900

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|
|/ \|

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.


--
Mikefule - Roland Hope School of Unicycling

The poor lack much, the greedy, everything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikefule's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/879
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900

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 ****ed about it so they bite me in
the *****.

(it's bigger now!)

I do these things to look cool.


--
Seager - that one guy who does that stuff

'Team RoadShow' (http://www.teamroadshow.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seager's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/8840
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900

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|
|/ \|

Ian Smith wrote:[color=blue]
*On Mon, 29 Aug, Mikefule wrote:
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. 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.


--
Seager - that one guy who does that stuff

'Team RoadShow' (http://www.teamroadshow.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seager's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/8840
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900

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.

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.


--
onewheeldave - Semi Skilled Unicyclist

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the ******* work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
onewheeldave's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/874
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900

Seager wrote:
*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 ****ed about it so they bite me in
the *****.

(it's bigger now!)

I do these things to look cool. *


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'
(http://sixsixone.com/gear/support_bibknee.html), 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.


--
onetrack - training wheel required

"People over here have a dangerous habit of adding quotes to signature
lines."
-Klaas Bil

What's so scary about evolution theory anyway?
-Foss
------------------------------------------------------------------------
onetrack's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/6374
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Seager wrote:[color=blue]

Ian Smith wrote:
*On Mon, 29 Aug, Mikefule wrote:
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|
|/ \|