Please wear a helmet on the mountains!

Membrane

The_B_Man wrote:

I can admit though, that if i did fall, i'd rather be wearing a helmet than not

rubadub wrote:

I dont think anybody doubts this.

Without wanting to overstate the importance, there are actually indications that wearing a helmet can on occasions cause injuries due to neck rotation and the fact that in practice helmets are often worn and/or secured incorrectly.

dylbert

Membrane wrote:

The strength of the human skull is a huge magnitude greater than that of a cycle helmet. Ergo a cracked helmet does not mean that serious damage to the skull would have ensued had the helmet not been worn.

A styrofoam helmet is designed to absorb impact, not to stay in one piece. Styrofoam is very good at absorbing energy, this is why it is nearly always used to pack sensitive electronic equipment.

Yes, the human skull is allot stronger, but because of its strength and rigidity it transfers allot of the energy of an impact to the brain, so your skull may be intact but you have no idea what damage has been done to your brain. I've seen someone simply fall over and do serious damage to themselves.

I choose not to use a helmet, only because the roads I cycle are fairly safe with little traffic, if I thought the risk of being in an accident was greater I would definitely buy one.

mcgratheoin

dalk wrote:

Has it occurred to you that maybe your "preconceived notions" may not be very accurate or even correct?
And so because it doesn't agree with your (presumably infallible) "preconceived notions" its biased?
Personally i thought the websites quoting and linking to lots of different studies and papers is fair. Lots of information there to be able to make your own mind up with...

It may have escaped your notice that I didn't advocate wearing or not wearing a helmet so I'm not sure which infallible preconceived notions you're talking about. I merely pointed out that site is as biased against helmets as a manufacturer's site is towards helmets.

See my previous post here

Membrane

mcgratheoin wrote:

I merely pointed out that site is as biased against helmets as a manufacturer's site is towards helmets.

That's a bizarre conclusion. First because the site does not argue against the wearing of helmets, it merely presents the arguments that are commonly used in favour and compares that to scientific research. Research that concludes that there is a benefit, research that concludes that there is no real benefit, and research that concludes that there are negatives. It evaluates each as critically as the other. Secondly the site allows readers to draw their own conclusions, it doesn't push for a particular conclusion. Thirdly manufacturers have a vested interest in talking up the benefits of helmets, cyclehelmets.org has no such interests.

mcgratheoin

Membrane wrote:

It evaluates each as critically as the other.

it doesn't push for a particular conclusion.

Agree to disagree, but I don't accept these two points in relation to this website.


*edit* A better impartial site is why cycle.

rubadub

Membrane wrote:

Thirdly manufacturers have a vested interest in talking up the benefits of helmets, cyclehelmets.org has no such interests.

Yes, I cannot think of any ulterior motive somebody might have to lie about why they would not be of benefit. If they were trying to push something, like safety of seatbelts, or abs Vs airbags then certainly people will skew results.

It is very easy to skew results on any tests towards what you want the outcome to be, I have done it myself, my job is somewhat technical and in many specifications of items you can see clearly how figures are skewed either by the designers or more often the marketers.

I also mentioned earlier that helmet owners would tend to be biased towards them too, either conciously or subconciously. They have paid for the item and so do not want to feel they have wasted any money on it. I was 50/50 about getting a helmet until I read the various studies and made up my own mind. If I was more aggressive or clumsy on the road and often crashed it would suit me to get one. But I am pretty careful and I feel the danger of motorists passing close to me outweighs the benefit afforded by a crash due to a "non motorist incident".

However I do think if I had bought the helmet before reading the studies I would be subconciously biased and would not like to think my money was wasted, so probably would still have worn it.

Membrane

mcgratheoin wrote:

A better impartial site is why cycle.

I don't see that site as really taking a different stance. It seems to want to present people with a conclusion rather than present them with the body of underlying research as cyclehelmets.org does. It seems to me that whycycle used cyclehelmets.org to form it's conclusion.

Here's what whycycle says about cyclehelmets.org: "There is an internationally collaborative group of individuals ranging from Doctors to cycling safety experts, statisticians and people with professional involvement in helmet design and performance. This group has it's own, very informative website here: http://www.cyclehelmets.org"

Personally I prefer not to have conclusions drawn for me, I prefer to see the research and draw my own conclusions which IMO cannot be simplified in a binary "do helmets make you safer or unsafer?" conclusion as whycycle seems to be doing.

mcgratheoin

I feel that why cycle is more impartial than cyclehelmets.org. While cyclehelmets.org includes pro and anti helmet literature, the commentaries (which i referred to earlier as editorial content) are not as unbiased.

See commentaries listed here

For the pro helmet literature, the commentaries are invariably critical and point out the shortcomings in the studies (I'm not qualified to judge most of the analysis from a scientific background). For example;
here
here
here


On the other hand, any literature that is unfavourable to helmets is not criticised in the same manner,
here
however, it must be noted that there are comparably very few papers quoted which are essentially anti-helmets, hence there is only this particular example commented upon.


Again, I stress that I am not a pro or anti helmet crusader, I don't believe in mandatory helmet wear, however, as a research scientist, the bias which I feel is evident in this particular site galls me.

Membrane

mcgratheoin wrote:

I feel that why cycle is more impartial than cyclehelmets.org. While cyclehelmets.org includes pro and anti helmet literature, the commentaries (which i referred to earlier as editorial content) are not as unbiased.

See commentaries listed here

We can't know what it is that you find biased unless you specify it.

For the pro helmet literature, the commentaries are invariably critical and point out the shortcomings in the studies (I'm not qualified to judge most of the analysis from a scientific background). For example;
here
here
here

See above, and if as you say you are not qualified to judge the analysis, how can you declare it biased?

On the other hand, any literature that is unfavourable to helmets is not criticised in the same manner,
here

Again we can't know what it is that you object to if you don't specify it.

mcgratheoin

Membrane wrote:

See above, and if as you say you are not qualified to judge the analysis, how can you declare it biased?

I'm not judging the scientific credibility of the analysis, although I would point out that the majority of the commentary articles are anonymously authored and unreviewed. I'm merely noting the fact that only anti-helmet commentary appears on the website. At no point on the website is there editorial content which says anything along the lines of "the authors have a good point here about why people should wear helmets" or some other such pro-helmet phrasing.

To me, this gives the impression that the site's primary role is to cast doubt on the existing pro-helmet literature.

Anyway, this argument gets done to death a million and one times, so I hope everyone has a good bank holiday weekend, I'm taking tomorrow off and cycling to Waterford.

Membrane

mcgratheoin wrote:

I'm not judging the scientific credibility of the analysis, although I would point out that the majority of the commentary articles are anonymously authored and unreviewed.

The quality of comments isn't affected by lack of attribution.

I'm merely noting the fact that only anti-helmet commentary appears on the website. At no point on the website is there editorial content which says anything along the lines of "the authors have a good point here about why people should wear helmets" or some other such pro-helmet phrasing.

There is very little "anti-helmet commentary" that I can see, there is plenty of criticism of the arguments commonly used in favour of helmets. That doesn't make cyclehelmets.org anti-helmet.

To me, this gives the impression that the site's primary role is to cast doubt on the existing pro-helmet literature.

Proper scientific analysis doesn't mean that the conclusion cannot be that a certain camp doesn't have much of a case.

I'm taking tomorrow off and cycling to Waterford.

Now yer talking, have a good one.

rubadub

mcgratheoin wrote:

however, it must be noted that there are comparably very few papers quoted which are essentially anti-helmets, hence there is only this particular example commented upon.

Of course there are very few, who would finance them?

A lot of studies are done by academics who survive on funding from corporations paying them to do studies. A corporation will go to them saying, maybe subtlely "we want a study to show how safe it is to wear helmets".

The "scientist" is not even going to get the chance to do the study if the company is not expecting the outcome to be what they want. Figures are very easy to skew, the scientist is not going to get any return business if he doesnt give the results they want.

Look at all the studies done on smoking, you can skew figures to make it look healthy if you try hard enough.

Who would be willing to pay a scientist to skew figures to make helmets look unsafe?

cyclopath2001

Civilian_Target wrote:

Ineffective if not worn on head?

"Ineffective in collisions involving motor vehicles, avoid using near trucks."

Membrane

cyclopath2001 wrote:

"Ineffective in collisions involving motor vehicles, avoid using near trucks."

Now that's funny, are they suggesting riders take their helmets off when a truck gets near them?

Stereophonic

Funny comment there but I think membrane is playing along at this stage. Its you own choice!

ThOnda

I agree. Wearing a helmet is everybody's own decision. I prefere wearing a helmet. It protects my head from flies, rain, sun and cold wind. And if I fall, it could absorb some energy and decrease injuries on or inside my head.
And it is purely my selfish opinion, that I call "not very wise" everybody riding a bike (anywhere, but mainly on the roads and in the traffic) not wearing a helmet.
And thanks for all quotations, it looks that at least somebody can understand my bad English :-)

Ghost Rider

rubadub wrote:

Put a lid back on that can of worms

I think everyone would recommend wearing a helmet when mountainbiking though, I would also wear knee and elbow pads, I find it odd that people do not, even people who would "never leave the house" without a helmet, and think people who do are crazy.

Trojan

Ok, that's enough, this round to the blue corner.