A can of worms - do helmets work?
04-08-09 | 06:18 PM
#176
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
From: New Gersey
Bikes: 199X Bicycle Corporation of America Rival Road Bike, 1970s Auto-Mini Junior, 2009 Windsor Hour
I have seen plenty of people tell other people to wear helmets, and not once has any of their reactions been "I should be wearing a helmet? Wow, cycling is dangerous, I'd better stop." They shrug it off and keep riding without one. If you were ever a kid and your mom told you to put on your helmet, you probably rode around the corner and then took it off like I did. Promoting helmet use doesn't convince people that cycling is dangerous, it is simply trying to convince people to wear one so that in the off chance that they may hit their head, it will be there to minimize damage as much as possible. Just because cycling is not that dangerous, does not mean that some drivers and other unpredictable variables aren't either. People don't wear helmets to create a safety-bubble around their bikes, they wear one in case of the 1 in a million chance that somehow their head will take a hit.
Also, laws require kids to wear helmets because no one wants their child to end up in the hospital in a coma from a head injury; but not everyone has the responsibility to protect their children from that possibility. The government steps in.
Think of helmets like life insurance. Is living dangerous; should people stop? Absolutely not, but just in the unlikely case that something does happen, you and your loved ones have a lot to lose. It just might be worth it in the long run.
Also, laws require kids to wear helmets because no one wants their child to end up in the hospital in a coma from a head injury; but not everyone has the responsibility to protect their children from that possibility. The government steps in.
Think of helmets like life insurance. Is living dangerous; should people stop? Absolutely not, but just in the unlikely case that something does happen, you and your loved ones have a lot to lose. It just might be worth it in the long run.
Last edited by cblaster; 04-08-09 at 06:21 PM.
04-08-09 | 07:05 PM
#177
Surf Bum
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,184
Likes: 5
From: Pacifica, CA
Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.
The whole point of this thread is that in the long run it ISN'T worth it. Go back and re-read the first post of this thread and its supporting documents.
"In all countries where helmet laws have been introduced and enforced, there has been a substantial reduction in cycle use".
The potential reduction in head injuries from helmet use does not make up for the reduction in bike usage. In other words, society would be better to ignore the helmet issue, allow a few people get hurt, but benefit from overall boosts in the health and safety of the population that would come from the increase in bicycle usage.
"In all countries where helmet laws have been introduced and enforced, there has been a substantial reduction in cycle use".
The potential reduction in head injuries from helmet use does not make up for the reduction in bike usage. In other words, society would be better to ignore the helmet issue, allow a few people get hurt, but benefit from overall boosts in the health and safety of the population that would come from the increase in bicycle usage.
04-08-09 | 07:46 PM
#178
onitsuka tiger
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
From: southern california
Bikes: 60's mercian track
i dont think style of bike usage should be ignored.
all cyclists are not the same.
most of us here ride fixed gears....likely, we ride them faster and more aggressively than the casual beach cruiser type or casual cyclist might. same applies to bmx.
the types of riders involved in accidents incurred during more aggressive riding would benefit more from involving a helmet than the majority of casual cyclists would benefit from wearing helmets.
i really don't think that's disputable. it's extremely biased to apply the results of a study who's participants are largely and on average much more of a casual (read as "slow and cautious") to this forum, primarily more aggressive, faster, riders.
all cyclists are not the same.
most of us here ride fixed gears....likely, we ride them faster and more aggressively than the casual beach cruiser type or casual cyclist might. same applies to bmx.
the types of riders involved in accidents incurred during more aggressive riding would benefit more from involving a helmet than the majority of casual cyclists would benefit from wearing helmets.
i really don't think that's disputable. it's extremely biased to apply the results of a study who's participants are largely and on average much more of a casual (read as "slow and cautious") to this forum, primarily more aggressive, faster, riders.
04-09-09 | 07:46 AM
#179
Senior Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
Bikes: Tease Fixed Gear, Schwinn World Traveler 72, 60's Hawthorne
While this article cites many published studies, it was not published in a peer reviewed journal. Which means that it was not read and critiqued by qualified peers. Peer-Review is an essential part of the scientific process. I don't even get what the purpose of this web site that is linked is, but are we even sure of this websites credentials? I could put up a story on my website about how eating **** is good for your health, would you guys believe it? If you start clicking on the individually linked studies you start seeing less and less support for the main theses of this article. Who even read all this information and put it together? Do they know statistics at all? There is no author? This is fishy in the scientific world, until this article gets published in a journal like JAMA, then it's really not anything!
04-09-09 | 07:56 AM
#180
Nubbie
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
yeah that looks like a "freako" page, like one guy with a fixation, gets on the internet and sets up a website calling himself a "think tank" or a "institute" to try and give themselves credibility. if you cant tell there are a lot of people involved or if you can tell it is mostly just one freako then it might be a freako site, and before you know it they want you to drink thier coolaid
04-09-09 | 05:54 PM
#181
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 573
Likes: 53
From: Venice, FL
Bikes: 1986 Schwinn LeTour, 1977 Raleigh Super Course (converted to fixed gear), 199X GT outpost
The way I understand science and null results (this is infact what I do on a daily basis, and I have infact published a few papers and I have in fact dealt with null results in my work). Nevermind how much of a di(k you were with the bear rock comment, come on I never said anything about correlation/coincidence/or causation at all. But any null result cannot be trusted because it can be caused by either A) the existence of no difference or B) poor methods. If a poor methodological concern is found, it should be addressed. The poor methods, including accidents that don't involve the head, has not been adequately addressed. The poor inflexibility of the con people is not seeing that we actually have agreed on much. 1 helmets don't protect when the accident doesn't involve the head 2. Most accidents don't involve the head and 3. when an accident involves the head a helmet would be helpful. The problem is that I personally think 2 is so obvious that it's not worth discussing and 3 is also so obvious that my heart is telling me this data will show large advantages in this specific situation. here's the kicker helmets are made for situation 3. But the con people are somehow against this...Anyways..
Now guess what it's time to quit hiding behind data, we've poked holes in it..massive holes. And it's time for you to make a decision. A real world decisions. If you're advocating no wearing a helmet, would you be willing to put your money where your mouth is and be found liable for your spreading of this idea? That is, if someone takes your advice and gets in an accident and has Brain damage, can they sue you? A lot of people read these posts, some under the age of 15 (who are not legally considered capable for making their own decisions and whose frontal lobes are not fully formed and thus there's biological support for this argument).
Also, now lets think about you and your soul. You find out that someone died after reading your convincing arguments, how would you feel? Like you convinced someone to not wear a helmet, and they died because of your advice....is this something you're willing to live with. This is where science and reality don't always merge.
A null result that may suggest that helmets don't do anything or may suggest that poor methods were used (poor data sampling in this case); is this strong enough for you to persuade people to not wear helmets? Is there not enough doubt in the null finding that you don't question the thing you are advocating. If you believe in it fully, then state your real name, your real address, your real phone number.
As for the null result thing, I'm a popperian, so a null result is not acceptable. Set your null to helmets protect against brain damage, and disprove this! That's the theory behind helmets. These data do not falsify this null. Which is the important null. Scientists don't interpret null results because they are liable for the conclusions that are drawn (i.e. they are viewed as a schmuck when bad things happen as a result of their poor research). The case in point is the ****** bad that said lead was safe and doesn't harm children...He based his findings on null results, just like you are..
As for the people not biking because of it, again, what is your value of a life? I mean one person dies that is an invaluable loss (according to philosophers like Kant anyways). But it's a tangent. The first data don't suggest helmets don't work. The second data suggest that there is a down side to helmets, but no one said helmets were angles. It's like this. Sex without a condom sucks, but Aids is worse. There are down sides to everything, but does this minor downside mean that we shouldn't promote bike safety? No!
Now guess what it's time to quit hiding behind data, we've poked holes in it..massive holes. And it's time for you to make a decision. A real world decisions. If you're advocating no wearing a helmet, would you be willing to put your money where your mouth is and be found liable for your spreading of this idea? That is, if someone takes your advice and gets in an accident and has Brain damage, can they sue you? A lot of people read these posts, some under the age of 15 (who are not legally considered capable for making their own decisions and whose frontal lobes are not fully formed and thus there's biological support for this argument).
Also, now lets think about you and your soul. You find out that someone died after reading your convincing arguments, how would you feel? Like you convinced someone to not wear a helmet, and they died because of your advice....is this something you're willing to live with. This is where science and reality don't always merge.
A null result that may suggest that helmets don't do anything or may suggest that poor methods were used (poor data sampling in this case); is this strong enough for you to persuade people to not wear helmets? Is there not enough doubt in the null finding that you don't question the thing you are advocating. If you believe in it fully, then state your real name, your real address, your real phone number.
As for the null result thing, I'm a popperian, so a null result is not acceptable. Set your null to helmets protect against brain damage, and disprove this! That's the theory behind helmets. These data do not falsify this null. Which is the important null. Scientists don't interpret null results because they are liable for the conclusions that are drawn (i.e. they are viewed as a schmuck when bad things happen as a result of their poor research). The case in point is the ****** bad that said lead was safe and doesn't harm children...He based his findings on null results, just like you are..
As for the people not biking because of it, again, what is your value of a life? I mean one person dies that is an invaluable loss (according to philosophers like Kant anyways). But it's a tangent. The first data don't suggest helmets don't work. The second data suggest that there is a down side to helmets, but no one said helmets were angles. It's like this. Sex without a condom sucks, but Aids is worse. There are down sides to everything, but does this minor downside mean that we shouldn't promote bike safety? No!
That is why I lost interest in the argument (kind of bored tonight, though). You're very bad at logic, and at this point we're just sort of circling the drain. The lack of implication between correlation and causation is the only plausible objection that could be raised against null results. By the way, the first of those arguments (A) is a petitio principii...maybe. It might not even be that. Who can say? As for the second (B), any results can be caused by poor methods. So, by the same reasoning, no results of any study can be trusted. The real problem with that dilemma, though, is that it's false. Null results can be caused by A or B, but that's not all that can cause them. They can also be caused by a false hypothesis, which has been the case in some very famous and valuable studies.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to say that, According to your Popper, the fact that at least one valuable scientific study that returned null results (like the Michleson-Morley experiment) exists is enough to provide a counter example and thus falsify the rejection, as a rule, of experiments returning null results. It's one thing to admire a philosopher like Popper, but don't throw away all critical analysis. You can be a widely regarded and well-respected philosopher, but still subject to criticism from other widely regarded and well-respected philosophers, as he was.
Surprisingly, I'm sort of inclined to agree with you, not just in the case of this study, but in the case of all statistical studies. In my humble opinion, there's a reason that statistical data as an effective tool is relegated to pseudo-sciences like psychology and sociology and non-sciences like business. If you doubt that, try finding a physics, mathematics, or chemistry curriculum that requires stats courses. The only exception might be the medical community, but they are prevented by ethical obligations from performing the type of ballistics and head-trauma experiments that could furnish less ambiguous results about things like helmets, which I think is a good thing.
And all that nonsense you said about my soul--honestly--that just makes you sound like a crazy person. Children are fortunately barred from making a lot of their own decisions. I don't disagree with you about their horribly disfigured, underdeveloped brains.
While this article cites many published studies, it was not published in a peer reviewed journal. Which means that it was not read and critiqued by qualified peers. Peer-Review is an essential part of the scientific process. I don't even get what the purpose of this web site that is linked is, but are we even sure of this websites credentials? I could put up a story on my website about how eating **** is good for your health, would you guys believe it? If you start clicking on the individually linked studies you start seeing less and less support for the main theses of this article. Who even read all this information and put it together? Do they know statistics at all? There is no author? This is fishy in the scientific world, until this article gets published in a journal like JAMA, then it's really not anything!
04-10-09 | 12:52 PM
#182
Senior Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
Bikes: Tease Fixed Gear, Schwinn World Traveler 72, 60's Hawthorne
Note: nothing is wrong with my logic. Note: I never said anything about correlation...nothing I'm saying is about correlation. Note. You misinterpret everything everyone on this forum has said..And then you question my logic? A null result (not any result) can be due to methodological shortcomings fact! Not any result... It's hard to make significant results in the direction you predict from your hypothesis... Replication is required for any finding to be accepted... So, any single result cannot be trusted that is true... You are confusing what a null result is (the null hypothesis is the theory or hypothesis from a theory you are trying to disprove...like in physics the null hypothesis was set to newton's theory which makes very explicit prediction...social science that compare groups make the null hypothesis that the two groups are the same...it's a different ballgame). In this case the null hypothesis was that there was going to be a specific effect driven by some theory that I personally don't understand.. Therefore, not finding this difference is a significant result..not a null result. Because the null hypothesis (i.e. the theory you are trying to disprove) was that something would happen it didn't. So it is not a null finding. The null hypothesis = the established theory you are trying to disprove. NOTE Modern science is founded on POPPER. SORRY that you don't understand him, maybe you should read up and do your homework. My original posts were simply directed at the researcher, and you took their cause...that sucks but you're on the wrong side of good science (i.e. poor science). The stuff about you and your soul bring science back to the real world...Give us your name and give us your position and claim liability, if you are so sure that helmets do not work. Science leads to real world decisions, if you believe in this science you should believe in the real world decision that you are advocating. I bet you didn't even think about the real world implication of your interpretation of this "science". This is why I brought up the kids who read these forums. Science leads to action...and morals not statistics bridges the gap between the data and policy, and I question your ability to consider the bigger picture. My things about science were simply tid bits, you then go on to insult me and think your cool? I don't get you the thing that would really shut me up is you signing a statement with your name on it that says you are liable for this post! If you believe in your position and this research so much, then you should not only view yourself liable for your actions but also the actions of those who you have convinced (and I guarantee there are a few who were convinced by the original post). That's where you haven't thought about anything you're saying...You are not seeing the big picture! And I doubt you really buy this research anymore either.. I hope you wear a helmet because even though I do not like you at all, I don't want to see your life ruined (even if the probability is less than 5% that it is (note 5% is the standard for a type 1 error in science)! I'm sorry that I've made a new enemy on this forum, and I hope the moderators do not ban me!
04-11-09 | 03:35 PM
#185
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Helmet wearers more get less love from drivers
I personally wear a helmet and I can think of a couple of occasions when it has spared me some stitches at the very least. That being said, I generally ride much more cautiously on the rare occasions I forget to wear a lid. Definite false sense of security.
I don't think anyone had mentioned this earlier, but it appears that in many cases, not wearing a helmet will provide you additional breathing room from drivers on the road:
"His findings, published in the March 2007 issue of Accident Analysis & Prevention, state that when Walker wore a helmet drivers typically drove an average of 3.35 inches closer to his bike than when his noggin wasn't covered. But, if he wore a wig of long, brown locks—appearing to be a woman from behind—he was granted 2.2 inches more room to ride. "
https://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/13...s-inspire.html
It appears that wearing a wig provides even greater benefit. Though, the only wig I own is of a filthy mullet.
I hate to open this can of worms, but do mullets work?
I don't think anyone had mentioned this earlier, but it appears that in many cases, not wearing a helmet will provide you additional breathing room from drivers on the road:
"His findings, published in the March 2007 issue of Accident Analysis & Prevention, state that when Walker wore a helmet drivers typically drove an average of 3.35 inches closer to his bike than when his noggin wasn't covered. But, if he wore a wig of long, brown locks—appearing to be a woman from behind—he was granted 2.2 inches more room to ride. "
https://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/13...s-inspire.html
It appears that wearing a wig provides even greater benefit. Though, the only wig I own is of a filthy mullet.
I hate to open this can of worms, but do mullets work?
04-11-09 | 04:25 PM
#186
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,021
Likes: 1
From: on the moon
Bikes: Cinelli Mash
id say it depends on where you are hit. a bullet proof vest doesnt work if you get shot in the head.
i was hit by a truck going ~25mph when i was 14. my helmet DENTED the hood and totally took out the grill. if i wasnt wearing the helmet, i be dead or a vegetable right now, said the doctor
i was hit by a truck going ~25mph when i was 14. my helmet DENTED the hood and totally took out the grill. if i wasnt wearing the helmet, i be dead or a vegetable right now, said the doctor
05-04-09 | 11:54 AM
#189
Banned
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
From: New Jersey
Bikes: 2008 18" Olpran Patriot
2 storys here...
first one, when i was about 8 years old i was riding my huffy along the pavement when i hit a crack in the concrete, i flipped over the front of the handle bars and nailed my forehead into the pavement at a good clip. I had a lump the size of an egg on my head for about a week. this was with no helmet and long before the NJ helmet laws for people under 17 went into effect.
second time, i was about 14-15 years old, and i had a helmet on, and the kid who lived down the street side swiped me with his bike going full speed as i was coming out of the driveway, when i flew forward i hit his handle bars which were still moving with my nose, and now i have a deviated septum which i still make fun of him for giving me that :rofl:.
point being, ive never been directly saved by your regular old bicycle helmet, is it probably a good idea to wear one? Yes. The level of protection it gives the rest of your head? minimal, your pretty much only protected in certain kinds of impacts. Good luck if your getting hit in a place that isnt the top of your head.
first one, when i was about 8 years old i was riding my huffy along the pavement when i hit a crack in the concrete, i flipped over the front of the handle bars and nailed my forehead into the pavement at a good clip. I had a lump the size of an egg on my head for about a week. this was with no helmet and long before the NJ helmet laws for people under 17 went into effect.
second time, i was about 14-15 years old, and i had a helmet on, and the kid who lived down the street side swiped me with his bike going full speed as i was coming out of the driveway, when i flew forward i hit his handle bars which were still moving with my nose, and now i have a deviated septum which i still make fun of him for giving me that :rofl:.
point being, ive never been directly saved by your regular old bicycle helmet, is it probably a good idea to wear one? Yes. The level of protection it gives the rest of your head? minimal, your pretty much only protected in certain kinds of impacts. Good luck if your getting hit in a place that isnt the top of your head.
