Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense

On 26/02/2019 10:48, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:28:21 +0000, RJH wrote:

OK - all good! So I think in summary you (and ) are
saying that the risk of wearing a helmet outweighs the benefits?

I'm not sure it's even that clear-cut.

My view is that the benefits do not clearly outweigh the disbenefits
(some of which are not risks, but just costs, minor aggro etc).

I walk to the shops without dressing up in specific personal
protective equipment - why should I not cycle to the same shops
without doing so? Actually the official government statistics suggest
I'm more likely to be killed walking there and back than cycling there
and back.


Ah, arrived at last, I see your way of thinking. Not much point
discussing further, thanks for your input.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 26/02/2019 13:11, wrote:
On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 7:28:24 AM UTC, RJH wrote:


OK - all good! So I think in summary you (and ) are
saying that the risk of wearing a helmet outweighs the benefits?

I don't really have an opinion on cycle hats other than I don't see what use they are to me. I have always cycled without one as I have walked and driven without them either.

If you look at this chart, you would always use them whilst in a car as well.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0VYTNzWsAAjkdA.jpg


Thanks, understood.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 26/02/2019 10:48, GB wrote:
On 26/02/2019 08:10, RJH wrote:

Absolutely - simply scenarios that can and do happen every day that I
hadn't considered.

All these anecdotes come from people who haven't died. They don't prove
much, because the anecdotes from people who have died are curiously
lacking on this newsgroup.

If dead people could talk it wouldn't make any difference. We get lots
of "my helmet saved my life" or "my doctor told me" anecdotes in the
press, which they cannot prove.

Did anyone explain why you are twice as likely to get hit if wearing a
helmet?

I did not write this. But at least I realise that the writer was putting
a "what if", not claiming a fact. I suggest you look back at his
original post.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:29:10 +0000
RJH wrote:

On 25/02/2019 18:20, Rob Morley wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:00:57 +0000
RJH wrote:

[...]

[...]
[...]
Well no, because that would be risk compensation by cyclists not
drivers, and it has nothing to do with measuring passing distances.


Thanks, yes, I know - but it was the only article I could find in
context. Do you happen to know the one you refer to?

I usually rely on others with better memory than mine to provide
citations, but in this case I found it almost instantly:

https://helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm

On 27/02/2019 10:55, Rob Morley wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:29:10 +0000
RJH wrote:

On 25/02/2019 18:20, Rob Morley wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:00:57 +0000
RJH wrote:

[...]

[...]
[...]
Well no, because that would be risk compensation by cyclists not
drivers, and it has nothing to do with measuring passing distances.


Thanks, yes, I know - but it was the only article I could find in
context. Do you happen to know the one you refer to?

I usually rely on others with better memory than mine to provide
citations, but in this case I found it almost instantly:

https://helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm

From you cite.

Summary: Dr Ian Walker's measurements show that under some conditions
British drivers leave 3.3 inches more passing distance if the cyclist is
not wearing a helmet, and another 2.2 inches if the cyclist is wearing a
wig. The average passing clearance for all three cases was more than
four feet. The cyclist's position on the road changed everything,
canceling the difference at times. A new study in 2013 supports our
contention that Walker had misinterpreted his data.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/

You agree with them that Walker's study was unsound?

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 12:57:50 +0000
Tom Evans wrote:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/

You agree with them that Walker's study was unsound?

I have no opinion, I've not followed it, I just suggested that some
factors might have an effect that might not otherwise have been
considered, and the existence of the study.

On 27/02/2019 10:55, Rob Morley wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:29:10 +0000
RJH wrote:

On 25/02/2019 18:20, Rob Morley wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 18:00:57 +0000
RJH wrote:

[...]

[...]
[...]
Well no, because that would be risk compensation by cyclists not
drivers, and it has nothing to do with measuring passing distances.


Thanks, yes, I know - but it was the only article I could find in
context. Do you happen to know the one you refer to?

I usually rely on others with better memory than mine to provide
citations, but in this case I found it almost instantly:

https://helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm


Interesting, thanks - the issue is shifting between academics every few
years. The original has taken quite a kicking, but the original data
seems to keep getting reworked.

The latest (this month) supports the notion that drivers drive closer to
riders with helmets - but with a number of caveats and emphases. It's
not available electronically yet - so even if I could understand it
(unlikely) I've not read it.

I think the issue is probably best described as 'undecided'.

--
Cheers, Rob

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 21:11:38 +0000
RJH wrote:

On 27/02/2019 10:55, Rob Morley wrote:

https://helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm

Interesting, thanks - the issue is shifting between academics every
few years. The original has taken quite a kicking, but the original
data seems to keep getting reworked.

The latest (this month) supports the notion that drivers drive closer
to riders with helmets - but with a number of caveats and emphases.
It's not available electronically yet - so even if I could understand
it (unlikely) I've not read it.

I think the issue is probably best described as 'undecided'.

Indeed - lots of "not as obvious as common sense might suggest" issues
to be considered. The best that can be done is to try to help people
make an informed decision for themselves (or their children) while
showing that it's far from clear and simple, particularly at a social
epidemiological level.