Are we dealing with semantics here? The way you phrased that, along with all the eye-rolling and "bizarre"'s, gives me the impression that we're somehow not talking about the same things. Your objections don't seem to correspond with the basic probability and risk measurements that I've been explaining to you. I'm not even sure what you mean by "overall average" and "applies to the subpopulation", since in the sense that risk is modified by certain characteristics that is correct (but obvious), but in the sense that you seem to mean it is incorrect.

Think of it as a simple conditional probability. Each of the conditionals (relating to "average risk" in your terminology) are operative on the populations. What you are calling "subpopulations" would be determined by the conditions.

Your "three fold" risk is a number based on the entire (overall) population. Including unsafe riders.

If you are a safe rider, you are a member of a subpopulation, the average risk for which, will (presumably) be lower.

The "three fold" risk number wouldn't apply to you (or your subpopulation).

It's not even clear that the "three fold" number is at all accurate either.

Don't lose sight of what we're measuring and why. When we are talking about helmet advocacy, helmet laws, costs and safety in context of the interest of the State or society, then absolutely it should be based on every single rider.

I've said time and time again that my own risks would be different - no matter how many times you say that as if I'm arguing otherwise. It makes no difference to the risk measurement.

The range is 3-5 times. Three times, or even five times, the risk of driving (per mile or per hour) is probably low in my particular case.

I never said PPE (assuming it's Personal Protective Equipment) was irrelevant in any way. I'm just asking why [MENTION=191655]rydabent[/MENTION] why he doesn't wear a helmet while walking, based on his argument that you should protect yourself with a helmet while riding as long as there is the slightest possibility that you may be involved in an accident. You can certainly slip, fall and hit your head while walking.

An average is some what meaningless. If I lay a lighted cigarette in one of your hands and a block of dry ice in the other, on average you are comfortable. Averages and probabilities will bite you most every time.

Averages are for insurance actuaries.

I do know that I have a greater chance of crashing during a spirited MTB ride than a 11mph trip to the store and back, so I wear helmets on 100% of spirited MTB rides, only maybe 5% of rides to the store and back.

IMO, while road riding, one's chance of collision with a motor vehicle goes up most with regards to number of active driveways and cross streets one encounters. Most risk studies don't even look into that.

Another important thing to look at is how many miles of in-street streetcar tracks one has to ride along. Those things can really get ya in the rain if you're not careful or not very good at unweighting your wheels when needed.

These are things I take into consideration when I want to figure out what my own risk is, not when I'm trying to tell someone how risky bicycling is.

That's not what he said. He/I are simply pointing out that the "You never know what could happen!!!" argument can be applied to pretty much every human activity. It not only is unpersuasive reasoning in general, but makes hypocrites out of people who depend upon it.

And as long as you acknowledge that it could happen but you are willing to take the risk it's not a problem, but when people say it won't happen to me...

Well, firstly, I don't think I've ever seen anyone here write "It won't happen to me". That's just one of Ryda's many constructs. What some of us are actually writing is "It's so unlikely to happen to me that I'm not going to try protecting against it" - IOW, the same thing we all say about just about everything we do.

As far as "Willing to take the risk", it sounds like too much of an admission to me, like "Yeah, I know it's stupid but I'm going to do it anyway". It's something you would say before trying out an antique parachute, but not something you would say before going into the pool without a life vest.

Secondly, the "correct" attitude, IMO, is "As long as your decision doesn't affect me or mine, it's not a problem." Anything short of that makes it seem as though we need our nannie's permission before we head out the door

I gather Canadians enjoy that kind of paternalism, but down here in the States...

But that's the "problem" when people are trying to decide whether to wear a helmet or not, they end up reading things like, helmets don't save lives, helmets don't help major head injuries, helmets cause people to have more chance of injuries, helmet actually cause injuries... While there IS a grain of truth in all these statements... there is a lot left out as to when, and how helmets can and do actually help the wearer... I'm willing to "take the risk" of not wearing a helmet walking, jogging, showering, sleeping, because I have decided that the "risk" is low enough, not that there's no risk... Because, oh I'm ohso good at all these things that nothing will ever happen to me doing these things... doesn't always work out. I too have seen statements like that.

The same principle should be applicable to bicycle helmets. I totally agree with [MENTION=80669]Six jours[/MENTION]. ""As long as your decision doesn't affect me or mine, it's not a problem."

But they/most are saying there is no risk because they are good riders, because they ride safely, because it's safer to ride without a helmet, so they aren't actually taking a "risk"...

I've never seen such comments, but if you find those, you should reply directly to them. I've never made any such comment, nor do I believe such nonsense.

I haven't seen this either. I believe it is another construct; easier to argue against than reality.

The reality is that life is risk, and as the old saying goes, it comes with a 100% fatality rate. So we're all weighing the risks of various activities and deciding what, if anything, should be done about them. WRT cycling, a lot of people are saying that it's really dangerous and that everyone should wear a helmet. And a few of us are saying that you don't know how dangerous cycling is for anyone but you, and so should stop badgering other people about it.

The short version is that I have a pretty fair idea about how dangerous cycling is for me. For you, I haven't the faintest and don't care, because you are much better equipped to make those decisions than I am. I just want the same courtesy from you, and from everyone else.

Exactly. I'd think this is a simple, straightforward and reasonable expectation.

Not in this 2.0 version of the helmet thread, but in the 1.0 version, all those things I said in post 912 were said a lot...

Oh they were not.

I personally have written that because I am a very experienced, competent rider who does not take unnecessary chances, my risk of falling and suffering a serious brain injury is quite small. That is not to say that I am some kind of perfect rider, or that I believe my risk is zero - those statements were made up and attributed to me, because it's easier to attack them than what I actually wrote.

Other posters may have written similar things about their own perspective on their personal risk, but I honestly do not recall it. I certainly have never seen anyone here write that they have zero risk while riding.

Now, there have been some folks who claim that, in certain circumstances, helmets can increase the severity of injuries. The bolded part is key, though - I don't believe anyone here has ever claimed that helmets increase risk of injury overall.

No, it shouldn't be based on every single rider because not all riders are the same.

Anyway, people are concerned about helmets discouraging riding yet they are OK with using a possibly-bogus average risk number doing the same thing!

If your risks are known to be different (mostly related to taking action to increase or reduce the likely risk), the average risk doesn't apply to you.

The average is a poor predictor of indivdual risk (given the wide variation that would seem to be reasonable to expect). If the individual is a member of a subpopulation that is significantly different, then the average of the entire population is a even worse predictor. This is basic statistics (though it's something that many people don't get).

(The average is an OK predictor of pooled risk, which is what insurance companies are interested in.)

We don't really have any indication that the "3-5 fold" risk is even accurate. (It might not be that difficult to produce rather different "averages" with small changes in assumptions or what is being measured.)

It's also misleading to quote a single number rather than a range because it suggests that the magic number is more accurate than it ever could be.

If you really believed that, it seems odd that you would still keep riding.

You need to prove that, or at least support it. If you want to be consistent with basic statistics.

You have the sources, I've stated my assumptions. You have the calculations, though I agree very basic ones. State your objections, beyond simply your conclusion.

I assume that anyone reading it either knows what the number means, or at least asks. Incidentally, you are arguing about the range, 3-5 times the risk riding as driving, aren't you?



The risk in a motor vehicle - the per mile risk against which I compare - isn't particularly frightening. In addition, since I've looked into the risks and know enough not to dismiss these kinds of risk calculations, I am able to adapt my behavior to lessen my risks in particular situations.

The vast majority of those who purchase helmets have not done a lick of research and have not heard any of the bare-header arguments. They also have no idea of how helmets actually can and do help in the event of a crash with potential head injury. The majority just buy into the culture of fear which insists that a helmet is a necessary safety item to wear while cycling.

In the USA, the two biggest cycling crowds are those who wear helmets but have no idea about the actual figures regarding cycling safety or the efficacy of helmets in case of a crash, and those who do not wear helmets for no better reason than they don't want to. Those who wear helmets and understand their limited facility regarding cycling safety, and those who don't wear helmets for reasons outlined and argued by the barehead brigade are the vast minority.

I suspect you are 99% right, any and all comments on either sides seems like everyone is basically just, ... But the 1% that may come on here actually looking for some info on whether to wear a helmet or not, need to hear both sides to make an informed decision. Thus here we all are, for years and years, seems like most of us anyways I believe... And a few of us have actually learned something here I think...

And there are helmet-wearing crowds who do so because it's the law, myself included.

I can't recall even one poster on the various A&S helmet threads ever indicate that he was looking for some info on whether to wear a helmet or not.