|
Originally Posted by chasm54
(Post 14958397)
No, it almost certainly is not. Risk compensation is a well-observed phenomenon in a number of contexts, and there seems no reason to suppose that cyclists are immune. The safer people feel, the more they tend to indulge in risk-taking behaviour. So if you feel safer wearing a helmet, it is perfectly plausible that you may ride less cautiously as a result.
Risk compensation sure sounds plausible, but not regarding helmets and cycling. As I said before, Skye posted a study -- one from that helemt-skeptic site y'all are so keen on -- where the author found no measurable risk compensation going on, that it was basically a non-issue where cycling and helmet use is concerned. And even so, if the result of risk compensation on their part--by wearing a helmet--is that they are engaging in the risk-taking behavior of riding a bicycle, then perhaps the safety conferred on cyclists by more people out on the road riding as a result of their risk-taking cancels out any potential slight negatives regarding risk compensation, helmets, and cycling safety. |
Originally Posted by 350htrr
(Post 14958625)
Being hit by a vehicle, meaning the head actually is hit by the vehicle or does it also include being hit by a vehicle but the head only hits the pavement when you hit the ground? There IS a big difference...
|
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 14958679)
Yes, it almost certainly is.
Risk compensation sure sounds plausible, but not regarding helmets and cycling. As I said before, Skye posted a study -- one from that helemt-skeptic site y'all are so keen on -- where the author found no measurable risk compensation going on, that it was basically a non-issue where cycling and helmet use is concerned. And even so, if the result of risk compensation on their part--by wearing a helmet--is that they are engaging in the risk-taking behavior of riding a bicycle, then perhaps the safety conferred on cyclists by more people out on the road riding as a result of their risk-taking cancels out any potential slight negatives regarding risk compensation, helmets, and cycling safety. |
Originally Posted by chasm54
(Post 14958506)
You're probably wrong. The Snell Foundation, which tests helmets, says that because bicycle helmets have to be so light, it is impossible to make one that offers real protection against being hit by a vehicle. And the helmet manufacturers themselves do not claim that their products will protect you in this sort of accident. The forces involved simply overwhelm the helmet by such a margin that whether you're wearing one or not is pretty much irrelevant.
|
Originally Posted by lostforawhile
(Post 14958797)
what is the difference between a motorcycle helmet and a bike helmet? arent you basically doing the same thing, or is it due to sweating etc and needing air flow?
Bicycle helmets are very light. Nobody could ride energetically for sustained periods in something as hot and heavy (and therefore as useful) as a motorcycle helmet. And if you read the paper I linked to in my last reply to 350htrr, you'll see that the forces involved in an impact with a vehicle are often greater than a Formula One Grand Prix driver's helmet could cope with. A bicycle helmet has no chance. |
Originally Posted by chasm54
(Post 14958688)
One of your more convoluted arguments. And, of course, one of the problems about this whole debate is that there may be all sorts of things going on that we cannot properly measure.
Risk compensation not relevant in helmet debate. Has been debunked by helmet skeptic study. |
Originally Posted by chasm54
(Post 14958682)
Helmets are specced to deal with low-speed accidents in which no other vehicle is involved. Read this: http://cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf
CMAJ. 2012 Oct 15. [Epub ahead of print] Nonuse of bicycle helmets and risk of fatal head injury: a proportional mortality, case-control study. Persaud N, Coleman E, Zwolakowski D, Lauwers B, Cass D. Abstract BACKGROUND:The effectiveness of helmets at preventing cycling fatalities, a leading cause of death among young adults worldwide, is controversial, and safety regulations for cycling vary by jurisdiction. We sought to determine whether nonuse of helmets is associated with an increased risk of fatal head injury. METHODS:We used a case-control design involving 129 fatalities using data from a coroner's review of cycling deaths in Ontario, Canada, between 2006 and 2010. We defined cases as cyclists who died as a result of head injuries; we defined controls as cyclists who died as a result of other injuries. The exposure variable was nonuse of a bicycle helmet. RESULTS:Not wearing a helmet while cycling was associated with an increased risk of dying as a result of sustaining a head injury (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-7.3). We saw the same relationship when we excluded people younger than 18 years from the analysis (adjusted OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.4-8.5) and when we used a more stringent case definition (i.e., only a head injury with no other sub stantial injuries; adjusted OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.2-10.2). INTERPRETATION:Not wearing a helmet while cycling is associated with an increased risk of sustaining a fatal head injury. Policy changes and educational programs that increase the use of helmets while cycling may prevent deaths. PMID: 23071369 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23071369 J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2012 Oct 2. [Epub ahead of print] Performance analysis of the protective effects of bicycle helmets during impact and crush tests in pediatric skull models. Mattei TA, Bond BJ, Goulart CR, Sloffer CA, Morris MJ, Lin JJ. Source Department of Neurosurgery, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Illinois Neurological Institute; Abstract Object Bicycle accidents are a very important cause of clinically important traumatic brain injury (TBI) in children. One factor that has been shown to mitigate the severity of lesions associated with TBI in such scenarios is the proper use of a helmet. The object of this study was to test and evaluate the protection afforded by a children's bicycle helmet to human cadaver skulls with a child's anthropometry in both "impact" and "crushing" situations. Methods The authors tested human skulls with and without bicycle helmets in drop tests in a monorail-guided free-fall impact apparatus from heights of 6 to 48 in onto a flat steel anvil. Unhelmeted skulls were dropped at 6 in, with progressive height increases until failure (fracture). The maximum resultant acceleration rates experienced by helmeted and unhelmeted skulls on impact were recorded by an accelerometer attached to the skulls. In addition, compressive forces were applied to both helmeted and unhelmeted skulls in progressive amounts. The tolerance in each circumstance was recorded and compared between the two groups. Results Helmets conferred up to an 87% reduction in so-called mean maximum resultant acceleration over unhelmeted skulls. In compression testing, helmeted skulls were unable to be crushed in the compression fixture up to 470 pound-force (approximately 230 kgf), whereas both skull and helmet alone failed in testing. Conclusions Children's bicycle helmets provide measurable protection in terms of attenuating the acceleration experienced by a skull on the introduction of an impact force. Moreover, such helmets have the durability to mitigate the effects of a more rare but catastrophic direct compressive force. Therefore, the use of bicycle helmets is an important preventive tool to reduce the incidence of severe associated TBI in children as well as to minimize the morbidity of its neurological consequences. PMID: 23030382 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23030382 John |
CMAJ. 2012 Oct 15. [Epub ahead of print]
Nonuse of bicycle helmets and risk of fatal head injury: a proportional mortality, case-control study. Persaud N, Coleman E, Zwolakowski D, Lauwers B, Cass D. Abstract 3.1 Adjusted, 3.5 Adjusted, 3.6 head only, Hey, my number of 4.5/1 ain't that much off for a simple mind... Their 3.6/1 head only number works for me... :D |
Originally Posted by chasm54
(Post 14958506)
You're probably wrong. The Snell Foundation, which tests helmets, says that because bicycle helmets have to be so light, it is impossible to make one that offers real protection against being hit by a vehicle. And the helmet manufacturers themselves do not claim that their products will protect you in this sort of accident. The forces involved simply overwhelm the helmet by such a margin that whether you're wearing one or not is pretty much irrelevant.
|
Originally Posted by 350htrr
(Post 14959318)
CMAJ. 2012 Oct 15. [Epub ahead of print]
Nonuse of bicycle helmets and risk of fatal head injury: a proportional mortality, case-control study. Persaud N, Coleman E, Zwolakowski D, Lauwers B, Cass D. Abstract 3.1 Adjusted, 3.5 Adjusted, 3.6 head only, Hey, my number of 4.5/1 ain't that much off for a simple mind... Their 3.6/1 head only number works for me... :D If you're going to try and contribute to this thread, do us all the favor and at the very least, read the posts on it, ok? |
Originally Posted by lostforawhile
(Post 14959330)
the brain damage wasnt caused by the truck itself, it was caused by him flying through the air and hitting his head, this exact same accident could have happened on a bike, and a helmet would most likely have a absorbed a lot of the impact instead
|
Originally Posted by skye
(Post 14959498)
That study has already been addressed and dismissed, in this post: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...=#post14847315
If you're going to try and contribute to this thread, do us all the favor and at the very least, read the posts on it, ok? |
Here is a description of the "odds ratio" from Wikipedia (I thought I had already posted this).
The odds ratio [1][2][3] is a measure of effect size, describing the strength of association or non-independence between two binary data values. It is used as a descriptive statistic, and plays an important role in logistic regression. Unlike other measures of association for paired binary data such as the relative risk, the odds ratio treats the two variables being compared symmetrically, and can be estimated using some types of non-random samples... ...The odds ratio is the ratio of the odds of an event occurring in one group to the odds of it occurring in another group. The term is also used to refer to sample-based estimates of this ratio. These groups might be men and women, an experimental group and a control group, or any other dichotomous classification... ...An odds ratio of 1 indicates that the condition or event under study is equally likely to occur in both groups. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that the condition or event is more likely to occur in the first group. And an odds ratio less than 1 indicates that the condition or event is less likely to occur in the first group... Example Suppose that in a sample of 100 men, 90 drank wine in the previous week, while in a sample of 100 women only 20 drank wine in the same period. The odds of a man drinking wine are 90 to 10, or 9:1, while the odds of a woman drinking wine are only 20 to 80, or 1:4 = 0.25:1. The odds ratio is thus 9/0.25, or 36, showing that men are much more likely to drink wine than women... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds_ratio |
Originally Posted by lostforawhile
(Post 14958463)
I do have to wonder if some of the anti helmet crowd has bumped their head. I have a good friend of mine, brilliant doctor, he was jogging while up north, and was hit by a pickup truck that veered off the edge of the road, he suffered a lot of brain injury, and had a very long recovery, he had to give up his practice and retire, this same situation could have happened on a bike, I think if he had been on a bike and wearing a helmet, this might not have caused so much damage.
|
Was on a ride today and my tire got stuck int he crevasse of a railroad track. Needless to say, I completely ate it and fell. Ended up with a bruised hip bone, a spraigned shoulder and a cracked helmet.
Went to the ER and they said it was a mild concussion. I hit my head really hard on the pavement. While it can be debated endlessly on the merits of wearing a helmet in a car crash there are other freak accidents that do happen. I wouldn't have died, but I could have had a major concussion. Yay for dorky looking helmets! Now I have to go buy another! |
Originally Posted by lostforawhile
(Post 14959330)
the brain damage wasnt caused by the truck itself, it was caused by him flying through the air and hitting his head, this exact same accident could have happened on a bike, and a helmet would most likely have a absorbed a lot of the impact instead
Besides, we're trying to wean the bare-head brigade off comparing helmet use on bikes to helmet use while walking, climbing a ladder, or showering, and an anecdote like this doesn't help... |
Interesting. This thread now has over 4,240 posts, and nobody from either side has changed the mind of a single person from the other, and the rhetoric hasn't changed a bit. Clearly the overwhelming number of people who took the survey (almost 84%, roughly 5 of every 6 riders) believe helmets are useful, if not important. That's only slightly different than the number of people who don't smoke in the U.S. (roughly 4 in 5) versus those who refuse to believe it's bad for them (1 in 5). In other words, there is a segment of our society who believe they are invincible, and are willing to advance abstract arguments to support their beliefs. And in all fairness, not one person who has participated in this discussion has ever been killed for need of a helmet.....yet.
I find it encouraging that some of these people will realize the likely outcome of their behaviors before they procreate. Ultimately, this will be good for the gene pool. |
I think there was one person whose perspective shifted about a year ago. May have been on the previous iteration of the thread.
Actual helmet usage here in my MHL city is about 50%. If Darwinism really worked in this instance poor bike handling skills genes would be passed on if those that crash a lot of were saved by styrofoam. Other negative traits that may propagate if bike helmets had a profound impact on Eugenics might include excessive reaction time and poor situational awareness. |
Originally Posted by LesterOfPuppets
(Post 14960624)
If Darwinism really worked in this instance poor bike handling skills genes would be passed on if those that crash a lot of were saved by styrofoam. |
Originally Posted by Ancient Mariner
(Post 14960590)
Interesting. This thread now has over 4,240 posts, and nobody from either side has changed the mind of a single person from the other, and the rhetoric hasn't changed a bit. Clearly the overwhelming number of people who took the survey (almost 84%, roughly 5 of every 6 riders) believe helmets are useful, if not important. That's only slightly different than the number of people who don't smoke in the U.S. (roughly 4 in 5) versus those who refuse to believe it's bad for them (1 in 5). In other words, there is a segment of our society who believe they are invincible, and are willing to advance abstract arguments to support their beliefs. And in all fairness, not one person who has participated in this discussion has ever been killed for need of a helmet.....yet.
I find it encouraging that some of these people will realize the likely outcome of their behaviors before they procreate. Ultimately, this will be good for the gene pool. I surely respect their position as much as my own and don't make derogatory comments regarding them about procreation, self-selection from the gene pool, etc. Weak arguments, bad comparisons, anecdote, misrepresenting various studies, and outright deception are not unique to either side in this thread... |
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 14960326)
Besides, we're trying to wean the bare-head brigade off comparing helmet use on bikes to helmet use while walking, climbing a ladder, or showering, and an anecdote like this doesn't help...
|
:p
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 14960680)
Weak arguments, bad comparisons, anecdote, misrepresenting various studies, and outright deception are not unique to either side in this thread... |
And since it appears to be generally accepted practice to disregard published data on the subject, I will rely solely on my own experience which is anecdotal at best: In the past year, I have fallen off the bike a few times. In those falls, I hit my head twice, once with sufficient force to crack my helmet and give me a stiff neck. I have not hit my head while not wearing a helmet, so my data is incomplete, I admit, but I am satisfied that the trauma to my head was reduced by the presence of the helmet.
And with that, I'm done here. Have fun guys. Discussions like this are interesting for a while, but eventually become tiresome, especially when someone decides to start moralizing to the folks who are just trying to have fun. |
Originally Posted by Ancient Mariner
(Post 14961073)
And since it appears to be generally accepted practice to disregard published data on the subject, I will rely solely on my own experience which is anecdotal at best: In the past year, I have fallen off the bike a few times. In those falls, I hit my head twice, once with sufficient force to crack my helmet and give me a stiff neck. I have not hit my head while not wearing a helmet, so my data is incomplete, I admit, but I am satisfied that the trauma to my head was reduced by the presence of the helmet.
And with that, I'm done here. Have fun guys. Discussions like this are interesting for a while, but eventually become tiresome, especially when someone decides to start moralizing to the folks who are just trying to have fun. |
Originally Posted by lostforawhile
(Post 14959330)
the brain damage wasnt caused by the truck itself, it was caused by him flying through the air and hitting his head, this exact same accident could have happened on a bike, and a helmet would most likely have a absorbed a lot of the impact instead
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:57 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.