CB HI

Similar to the derision made by flat earthers.

martl

Nope. I asked a question to find out what you really meant to say. Common practice in discussions.

I said:

to which you replied:

That gave me the impression you couldn't even imagine 6 things more influential to cycling safety than protective gear. I thought it was obvious to everyone that passive crash protection is only the last bit, the very last bit, in the chain when talking about traffic safety. The first clearly is: Avoid getting involved in an accident in the first place. Watching every day how people ride their bikes, where they ride their bikes, how they maintain their bikes, i feel i was not exaggerating with "thousands of factors".

I follow the discussions quite along time now, i payed close attention to reports about bike accidents in the media for years. It is not uncommon to read stuff like
"Bike accident last night
A 55 year old cyclist suffered heavy injuries in an accident last night. The cyclist crossed a red light at 22:30 on a bike without lights when he got hit by a car. He was taken to hospital with a head trauma and multiple broken bones. Police reports he was tested positive for alcohol. The police spokesman also pointed out the victim was not wearing a helmet"...

Thats what i mean by "putting an unhealthy emphasis on the importance of helmets, while disregarding other factors".
unless it serves the just case, of course, doesn't it?

Safety is nothing you can buy in an equipment shop.

TurbineBlade

You are free to laugh if you want, but your laughing really appears to be a defense mechanism more than anything else. This thread is full of actual evidence that helmets aren't designed to prevent concussion and that no helmet CAN prevent concussion, and that they are designed and tested in simple linear falls, etc. etc. etc.

There is aslo actual evidence that MHL's decrease cycling (a univeral "bad"), and that the actual wearing of a helmet can influence driver behavior -- regardless of whether you choose to believe it or not.

There's also some evidence that in some accidents, a helmet can increase the force of impact -- once again, you resist evaluating the evidence objectively because you have always heard people spouting "emotional evidence" and "personal stories" to the contrary.

Also, you probably are quick to write-off many of us as lunatics because it makes it easier to ignore what is being posted here. I was working along those lines myself when I first starting reading about this issue -- it's a natural reaction, but one that can be overcome.

When logic and reality don't coincide, you go with reality. Yes, there is logic that trying to put something around your head should in some way help you in an accident. But the evidence doesn't support this, and in some cases actually disproves it.

I'm not telling you not to wear a helmet -- for the 12th time, I wear one 100% of the time as well. I used to think very similarly to how you are thinking right now. Evaluating the evidence changed my perception.

The benefit of this knowledge, is that you can focus on other more important issues for cycling safety as opposed to the MHL bandwagon, which is a waste of time and resources.

closetbiker

I'll continue to advocate making decisions based on being informed, rather than advocating for decisions based in ignorance.

frymaster

and if you had just said that in the first place, you wouldn't have sounded like some shrill evangelist harping about "thousands of factors"... and maybe, just maybe, would have gotten some headway convincing people.

BarracksSi

Yup.
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...mp-S-is-stupid

closetbiker

risk compensation is an effect whereby individual people may tend to adjust their behaviour in response to perceived changes in risk. It is seen as self-evident that individuals will tend to behave in a more cautious manner if their perception of risk or danger increases. Another way of stating this is that individuals will behave less cautiously in situations where they feel "safer" or more protected.

An associated theory is known as risk homeostasis. This extends risk compensation theory somewhat, although in practice the two terms are often used interchangeably.

There are at least three studies which show that drivers' response to antilock brakes is to drive faster, follow closer and brake later, accounting for the failure of ABS to result in any measurable improvement in road safety.

There is evidence that helmeted skiers tend to go faster.

groups of drivers, including those who did and did not habitually wear seat-belts, and measured the effect on driving style in the habitually unbelted. The drivers were found to drive faster and less carefully when belted.

The safer skydiving gear becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, in order to keep the fatality rate constant"

regulation of specific risky behaviors such as speed choice may have little influence on accident rates.

Harvard researcher Edward C. Green argued that the risk compensation phenomenon could explain the failure of condom distribution programs to reverse HIV prevalence. Dr Green says his ideas are motivated by empirical research, rather than by any moral or religious association with the Catholic Church

A study published in the March 2007 issue of Accident Analysis & Prevention stated that drivers drove an average of 8.5 cm closer, and came within 1 meter 23% more often, when a cyclist was wearing a helmet... This research thus implies risk compensation, not among cyclists but among fellow road users.

children went more quickly and behaved more recklessly when wearing safety gear than when not wearing gear, providing evidence of risk compensation. Moreover, those high in sensation seeking showed greater risk compensation compared with other children.

BarracksSi

*yawn*

LesterOfPuppets

Hint : Thread Tools > Unsubscribe from this Thread.

HTH

CB HI

Is it babies nap time?

closetbiker

meanwhile

They are somewhat effective in reducing facial road rash, which is the most you should reasonably expect from a no-car accident. Of course a full face helmet is *much* better at that again...

TurbineBlade

Thanks CB once again! I'd like to think that people reading the evidence would lead to something, but trying to use real, actual data seems to lose out to emotion quite a bit here.

CritEastwood

This thread is so filled with awesome.

BarracksSi

Yup. I now realize that it won't hurt as much to hit something without a helmet on.

TurbineBlade

While you're carrying papers to the copy machine in your office right? The great thing about sarcasm, is that it's a game for multiple players....like hungry hungry hippos.

BarracksSi

TurbineBlade

. So my positions are weak, and yours are based on personal feelings and ignoring evidence. We should take this show on the road!

Or run for Congress -- we're in the right location.

closetbiker

"I keep tellin' ya, you're gonna kill yourself ridin' that thing!"

martl

It was, as it happened, in the same posting, in the same sentence even.
"(Helmets) put an undeserved emphasis on the importance of passive protection gear at the expense of the thousands of other factors which decide whether you make it home from a ride in one piece or not"

kludgefudge

So THATS how I get my inbox to stop filling up with stupid bikeforums notifications....

CB HI

That and by not making needless post yourself.

LesterOfPuppets

A better way to solve that problem is :
Settings > General Settings > Default Thread Subscription Mode > Through my control panel only