I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you really should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git, but as someone with the near death experiences to prove it.
You're not a patronising git, just misinformed and ignorant. Wearing a helmet very slightly raises (not lowers) your risk of serious head injury or death, but not sufficiently to make them actively dangerous to wear if you prefer them. It's not as if this was a serious risk anyway - cycling is a very safe activity.
I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you really should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git, but as someone with the near death experiences to prove it.
You're not a patronising git, just misinformed and ignorant. Wearing a helmet very slightly raises (not lowers) your risk of serious head injury or death, but not sufficiently to make them actively dangerous to wear if you prefer them. It's not as if this was a serious risk anyway - cycling is a very safe activity.
Has the slight increase in risk ever been properly quantified?
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
Has the slight increase in risk ever been properly quantified?
The best study for that is the Rodgers one of 8 million US cyclists over 15 years which found "The most surprising finding is that the bicycle- related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use."
[Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988]
-- Tony
" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
Cycling wearing a helmet is slightly more dangerous than cycling not wearing a helmet, but cycling to work with or without a helmet is still an awful lot safer - not more dangerous - than walking.
You forgot to add "and the health benefits of cycling extend your life expectancy substantially more than the risks decrease it"
-- Tony
" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
Has the slight increase in risk ever been properly quantified?
The best study for that is the Rodgers one of 8 million US cyclists over 15 years which found "The most surprising finding is that the bicycle- related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use."
[Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988]
Could it have meant that wearers are more likely to be high-mileage cyclists and thereby more exposed to risk?
The concept seems sound - professional drivers (particularly those whose hours are not limited) seem also to be more exposed to risk.
The best study for that is the Rodgers one of 8 million US cyclists over 15 years which found "The most surprising finding is that the bicycle- related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use."
[Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988]
Could it have meant that wearers are more likely to be high-mileage cyclists and thereby more exposed to risk?
I don't have a reference but I think I have read that CTC members have about a double casualty rate compared to car users by mileage. This compares with a 14 times average for all cyclists.
I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you really should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git, but as someone with the near death experiences to prove it.
You're not a patronising git, just misinformed and ignorant. Wearing a helmet very slightly raises (not lowers) your risk of serious head injury or death, but not sufficiently to make them actively dangerous to wear if you prefer them. It's not as if this was a serious risk anyway - cycling is a very safe activity.
And you are a nasty bit of work, so that makes us even. ;-)
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
Has the slight increase in risk ever been properly quantified?
The best study for that is the Rodgers one of 8 million US cyclists over 15 years which found "The most surprising finding is that the bicycle- related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use."
[Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988]
It is hard for the man in the street to evaluate such studies. At the moment I am reading two books, one by Richard Dawkins called "The God Delusion" and one by a top scientist offering the opposite opinion. These books have obviously been written and published at almost the same time. It is scary how you can read a quoted 'fact' from a study in one book, only to pick up the other and find that same study debunked with equally convincing evidence.
We know very little about everything and, in all probability, will die largely in ignorance about anything. Facts are subjective.
The best study for that is the Rodgers one of 8 million US cyclists over 15 years which found "The most surprising finding is that the bicycle- related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use."
[Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988]
Could it have meant that wearers are more likely to be high-mileage cyclists and thereby more exposed to risk?
I don't have a reference but I think I have read that CTC members have about a double casualty rate compared to car users by mileage. This compares with a 14 times average for all cyclists.
In article <[email hidden]>, brian@ [nospam].com says...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
[Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988]
It is hard for the man in the street to evaluate such studies. At the moment I am reading two books, one by Richard Dawkins called "The God Delusion" and one by a top scientist offering the opposite opinion. These books have obviously been written and published at almost the same time. It is scary how you can read a quoted 'fact' from a study in one book, only to pick up the other and find that same study debunked with equally convincing evidence.
That is where a scientific training comes in and you need that and to read the papers in the field to build up a picture of what you can trust and what you can't. That's the way it works I'm afraid.
A number of those here have that background and have done the work and can point you to relevant papers. More detailed work has been done by http://www.cyclehelmets.org and presented in an accessible way if you are interested to learn more.
-- Tony
" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote
Quoted message said:
Tony Raven said:
The best study for that is the Rodgers one of 8 million US cyclists over 15 years which found "The most surprising finding is that the bicycle- related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use."
[Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988]
Could it have meant that wearers are more likely to be high-mileage cyclists and thereby more exposed to risk?
I don't have a reference but I think I have read that CTC members have about a double casualty rate compared to car users by mileage. This compares with a 14 times average for all cyclists.
Kaplan, Jerrold A.; Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User; MS thesis U of Maryland, 1975.
Accidents per million miles
Children 720 College Associated Adults 500 League of American Bicyclists 113 CTC members 66
The injury rate per km for cyclists is 13 times that for car occupants [Road Casualties in Great Britain 2006 Table 52]
-- Tony
" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
Has the slight increase in risk ever been properly quantified?
The best study for that is the Rodgers one of 8 million US cyclists over 15 years which found "The most surprising finding is that the bicycle- related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use."
[Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988]
It is hard for the man in the street to evaluate such studies. At the moment I am reading two books, one by Richard Dawkins called "The God Delusion" and one by a top scientist offering the opposite opinion. These books have obviously been written and published at almost the same time. It is scary how you can read a quoted 'fact' from a study in one book, only to pick up the other and find that same study debunked with equally convincing evidence.
We know very little about everything and, in all probability, will die largely in ignorance about anything. Facts are subjective.
Brian.
no a fact is a fact, rember the fact doesn't have to be 50% of one and 50% of the other it can quite easly be 100% once side.
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
I don't have a reference but I think I have read that CTC members have about a double casualty rate compared to car users by mileage. This compares with a 14 times average for all cyclists.
Kaplan, Jerrold A.; Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User; MS thesis U of Maryland, 1975.
Accidents per million miles
Children 720 College Associated Adults 500 League of American Bicyclists 113 CTC members 66
The injury rate per km for cyclists is 13 times that for car occupants [Road Casualties in Great Britain 2006 Table 52]
This is more or less what you'd expect - more experienced cyclists are markedly safer than less experienced cyclists
-- [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected ;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you ;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur ;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002
I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you really should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git, but as someone with the near death experiences to prove it.
You're not a patronising git, just misinformed and ignorant. Wearing a helmet very slightly raises (not lowers) your risk of serious head injury or death, but not sufficiently to make them actively dangerous to wear if you prefer them. It's not as if this was a serious risk anyway - cycling is a very safe activity.
And you are a nasty bit of work, so that makes us even. ;-)
I'm sorry the winkey doesn't excuse that comment.
If you think helmets significantly reduce your risk you are misinformed. If you haven't read the research you are ignorant about the subject. Simon wasn't making value judgements about you just describing the situation.
-- Andy Leighton => [email hidden] "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
