education

Swansea University Psychology said:

Cycling increases the probability and severity of injury, including
head injury, compared to my usual activities.

Prove it.

I analysed hospital admissions data for children in England over seven
years; they were no more likely to suffer a head injury in a bike crash than
in any comparable kind of accident.

In fact more children were admitted to hospital with head injuries following
assault than cycle crashes.

Quoted message said:

Wearing a helmet
decreases the probability and consequences of brain damage caused by
head injury.

Prove it.

This is flatly contradicted by population level figures from every country
in the world. There are some small-scale studies which make inflated claims
of this nature, including claiming that helmets are more likely to prveent
brain injury than trivial injury, but on investigation this usually turns
out to be the result of sampling or other errors.

It is also flatly contradicted by the standards for helmets (which,
incidentally, a sizeable minority of helmets routinely fail in independent
tests).

In New Zealand, helmet use rose from 43% to 95% in three years with no
measurable effect on head injury rates. In Australia the rate increased.
Same in ceertain states in Canada. In the USA head injury rates have
increased by 40% as helmet use has increased from 18% to 50%.

Quote from the Road Safety Minister, who is pro-helmet: the Government
knows of no case where cyclist safety has improved with increasing helmet
use.

Quoted message said:

Brain damage can result in permanent, wide-ranging,
profound, and extremely unpleasant problems.

Logical fallacy, common in pro-helmet propaganda. "Helmets reduce head
injuries which can cause disability or death"; the actual proportion of head
injuries which lead to disability or death is miniscule, and there is good
evidence to suggest that these are, in any case, not the ones which helmets
prevent.

Quoted message said:

I find that helmets are
not uncomfortable, and that they are not unreasonably priced (they
are expensive, but what price your brain?).

I used not to find them uncomfortable until I statred not wearing onew more,
and then I realised that they are. You also beg the question.

Quoted message said:

In short, the advantages of wearing a helmet vastly outweight the
disadvantages, therefore I wear a helmet.

Is the wrong answer. The balance is much finer than you believe - otherwise
it could scarcely be the case that the countries with the best cyclist
injury record are the ones with lowest helmet use.

Quoted message said:

I don't know the reference for the scientific report, but I'm reliably
informed that a positive correlation was found between intelligence
and helmet wearing amongst cyclists ;-)

The old "if you don't wear a helmet you have nothing to protect" canard, as
false today as it has always been.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

Hi again,

OK, I admit I didn't cite my sources or provide any data, which is not
exactly good practice! However, I intended that my post was merely a
personal viewpoint, so citations seemed overkill. I am not a neurologist,
nor a traffic engineer, so I don't bother keeping a record of the articles I
read, since this would take up time I would rather spend riding a bike :-)

I welcome rather than dismiss the reports mentioned that do not support
helmet use, since it is important to consider all the evidence.

Rather than fuel an important but heated debate, I'll try to find sources
for the claims I made, and I'll reply directly to those that requested
evidence, and have included an email address. davek made some comments but I
don't have your email address. If you could email this address, I'll be
happy to answer you.

Cheers all,
Neil.

Swansea University Psychology said:

I welcome rather than dismiss the reports mentioned that do not support
helmet use, since it is important to consider all the evidence.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org is a good place to start, as it has
references from all sides of the argument rather than the method often
favoured in this sort of thing[1]. http://www.cycle-helmets.com/ is a
specific study of the Western Australian experience

Pete.

[1] If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Swansea University Psychology said:

Rather than fuel an important but heated debate, I'll try to find sources
for the claims I made, and I'll reply directly to those that requested
evidence, and have included an email address. davek made some comments
but I
don't have your email address. If you could email this address, I'll be
happy to answer you.

This is a newsgroup. If you do have sources for your claims then many of
us would welcome seeing them here even if we haven't contributed to the
thread.

Colin

Just zis Guy said:

This is flatly contradicted by population level figures from every country
in the world.

I went to http://cyclehelmets.co.pn but they didn't have any
population level figures for cycle helmet usage nor any indication how
many cycle helmets there are in the country.

I imagine Mali hasn't got many figures for cycle helmet efficacy
either.

A

Swansea University Psychology said:

Hi again,

OK, I admit I didn't cite my sources or provide any data, which is not
exactly good practice! However, I intended that my post was merely a
personal viewpoint, so citations seemed overkill. I am not a neurologist,
nor a traffic engineer, so I don't bother keeping a record of the articles I
read, since this would take up time I would rather spend riding a bike :-)

I welcome rather than dismiss the reports mentioned that do not support
helmet use, since it is important to consider all the evidence.

Rather than fuel an important but heated debate, I'll try to find sources
for the claims I made, and I'll reply directly to those that requested
evidence, and have included an email address. davek made some comments but I
don't have your email address. If you could email this address, I'll be
happy to answer you.

That's a strange way of going about things.

You stick your head into a public forum, spout off a few unsupported
opinions and then try to take the discussion offline.

If you've got the evidence then post it publically, but I honestly can't
imagine you've got anything that hasn't been seen here before.

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "A modest little person, with much to be modest about."-
Winston Churchill
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Neil said:

However, I intended that my post was merely a
personal viewpoint, so citations seemed overkill.

But you are happy to vaguely state that you are "reliably informed" and
expect us to take your word for it? At least one member of this
newsgroup is a strongly pro-active cycling safety campaigner and if he
is unaware of this evidence then you might be doing him a great favour
by sharing it.

Quoted message said:

davek made some comments but I
don't have your email address. If you could email this address, I'll be
happy to answer you.

If you've got something to say, share it with the whole class. 😉

d.

Swansea University Psychology said:

OK, I admit I didn't cite my sources or provide any data, which is not
exactly good practice! However, I intended that my post was merely a
personal viewpoint, so citations seemed overkill.

You should have lurked a bit first, then. Helmet threads are common enogh
that you would have been able to predict the reaction :-)

Quoted message said:

I am not a
neurologist, nor a traffic engineer, so I don't bother keeping a
record of the articles I read, since this would take up time I would
rather spend riding a bike :-)

This is fairly typical. Some of us, on the oither hand, have spent that
time and kept that record. We find that there is no compelling case for
helmet use. We also find that those who claim there is, often base their
opinions on some very bad science.

Quoted message said:

I welcome rather than dismiss the reports mentioned that do not
support helmet use, since it is important to consider all the
evidence.

Quite. The normal course of events is that, havinbg considered all the
evidence, the Educated Cyclist then forms the opinon that it is a matter of
personal chloice, with at least as much evidence supporting those who eschew
helmets as a work of Stan as for those who would never leave home without
one.

Quoted message said:

Rather than fuel an important but heated debate, I'll try to find
sources for the claims I made, and I'll reply directly to those that
requested evidence, and have included an email address. davek made
some comments but I don't have your email address. If you could email
this address, I'll be happy to answer you.

Check on cyclehelmets.org first, since many of the studies you find will
have serious faults. This does not stop them being cited by other studies.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

"Swansea University Psychology" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi again,

OK, I admit I didn't cite my sources or provide any data, which is not
exactly good practice! However, I intended that my post was merely a
personal viewpoint, so citations seemed overkill. I am not a neurologist,
nor a traffic engineer, so I don't bother keeping a record of the articles

I

Quoted message said:

read, since this would take up time I would rather spend riding a bike :-)

I welcome rather than dismiss the reports mentioned that do not support
helmet use, since it is important to consider all the evidence.

Rather than fuel an important but heated debate, I'll try to find sources
for the claims I made, and I'll reply directly to those that requested
evidence, and have included an email address. davek made some comments but

I

Quoted message said:

don't have your email address. If you could email this address, I'll be
happy to answer you.

Please include me on that list. The easiest way to do this will be to post
your reply to the group, but if you _really_ insist on email, try evil-c
where I've got x's.

cheers,
clive

At the risk of serious flaming...

I'm not usually found on newsgroups, but I've followed this thread and
contributed.

I'm surprised by the attitude to discussion which some of the contributors
take. This is no better than pub chat. The use of statistics is far from
rigorous and the tone is at times rude. Allusions to 'real data' and 'KSI
stats' are useless without supportable references to rigorous studies. The
'facts' which I've seen conflate injuries across areas and populations which
don't really clarify the discussion... and yes, I've looked at that
cyclehelmets.org website and the rigour is still not there. The key facts
have no detail for comparision or meaningful citation.

So what? Another contributor leaves the board. Who cares? See you later.

nb - I replied to myself rather than single out one specific contributor in
case one of you suggests that I'm an idiot

Will H said:

'facts' which I've seen conflate injuries across areas and populations which
don't really clarify the discussion... and yes, I've looked at that
cyclehelmets.org website and the rigour is still not there. The key facts
have no detail for comparision or meaningful citation.

So citations giving the exact reference where the data was drawn from
aren't "meaningful"? How so?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Will H said:

'facts' which I've seen conflate injuries across areas and
populations which don't really clarify the discussion... and yes,
I've looked at that cyclehelmets.org website and the rigour is
still not there. The key facts have no detail for comparision or
meaningful citation.

So citations giving the exact reference where the data was drawn from
aren't "meaningful"? How so?

They don't agree with the OP's perceptions

A

Will H said:

The 'facts' which I've
seen conflate injuries across areas and populations which don't
really clarify the discussion...

As good a description of the average pro-helmet study as I've heard in a
while...

Quoted message said:

and yes, I've looked at that
cyclehelmets.org website and the rigour is still not there. The key
facts have no detail for comparision or meaningful citation.

Diane Thompson of Washington University makes this rather petulant point in
her reply to criticisms of the Cochrane review. She is wrong as well.

To suggest that the real-world figures disproving the small-scale studies
are somehow less credible because they were not published in the medical
press seems to me akin to the Pope requiring Richard Dawkins to disprove the
existence of God solely by reference to Biblical authority.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

Will H said:

At the risk of serious flaming...

If you consider any of the following to be flaming then you're very
sensitive. I don't wish to hurt your feelings.

Quoted message said:

I'm not usually found on newsgroups, but I've followed this thread and
contributed.

I think you've only been on this one since mid June.

Quoted message said:

I'm surprised by the attitude to discussion which some of the contributors
take. This is no better than pub chat.

Why would you expect anything else? But there are actually people on this
group who have studied the topic objectively and at great depth.

Quoted message said:

The use of statistics is far from
rigorous and the tone is at times rude.

This isn't an ivory tower, you know. Anyway, it's only Usenet, nobody
dies.

Quoted message said:

Allusions to 'real data' and 'KSI
stats' are useless without supportable references to rigorous studies.

If you look around (including looking in google groups) you'll find lots of
references.

Quoted message said:

The
'facts' which I've seen conflate injuries across areas and populations which
don't really clarify the discussion... and yes, I've looked at that
cyclehelmets.org website and the rigour is still not there. The key facts
have no detail for comparision or meaningful citation.

I don't think it's unusual to lack detail in this sort of debate. I guess
there would have to be a massive research programme to determine finally
whether helmets are beneficial or not. What we do have is a lot of
conflicting information. It's force of argument that tends to determine
the outcome in these situations.

Quoted message said:

So what? Another contributor leaves the board. Who cares? See you later.

If you hung round a bit longer you'd realise that this helmet discussion
takes place extremely regularly, normally when someone new joins us. To be
honest I think it's necessary but bloody boring.

No one wants to force you not to wear a helmet (some of the people here who
appear most rabidly anti-helmet actually wear one, they're actually
anti-compulsion) or to wear one. All they want you and other people to
realise is that the pro-helmet case is not as obvious as intuition would
have you believe.

Quoted message said:

nb - I replied to myself rather than single out one specific contributor in
case one of you suggests that I'm an idiot

Why would that stop anyone suggesting you're an idiot?

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I feel so miserable without you, it's almost like having
you here." -Stephen Bishop
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

"Michael MacClancy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There comes a point where reasoned debate seems futile .....

So one's left with .....

FOYRNB

I haven't heard that joke for about 10 years, thanks for reminding me.

You told it well too!
--
Mark South, Super Genius: World Citizen, Net Denizen

"Michael MacClancy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you hung round a bit longer you'd realise that this helmet discussion
takes place extremely regularly, normally when someone new joins us. To be
honest I think it's necessary but bloody boring.

Yes, it's proof that helmets cause brain damage.

Posting about helmets makes one boring and unfit.

Reading about helmets makes one into a brainless vegetable, and can cause
dislocation of the jaw.

Wearing a helmet or not, it's better being out on the bike than in one of these
debates.
--
Mark South, Super Genius: World Citizen, Net Denizen

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:34:47 +0100, Michael MacClancy
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Swansea University Psychology said:

Hello all,

Quoted message said:

> I landed squarely on top of my head at about 15-20kmph. I went over the
Whether the claims for either of these incidents is true or not has
no bearing on whether either helmet or seatbelt wearing is beneficial
at population level.

This is my statistical/logical perspective...

Cycling increases the probability and severity of injury, including head
injury, compared to my usual activities. Wearing a helmet decreases the
probability and consequences of brain damage caused by head injury. Brain
damage can result in permanent, wide-ranging, profound, and extremely
unpleasant problems. I find that helmets are not uncomfortable, and that
they are not unreasonably priced (they are expensive, but what price your
brain?).

In short, the advantages of wearing a helmet vastly outweight the
disadvantages, therefore I wear a helmet.

I don't know the reference for the scientific report, but I'm reliably
informed that a positive correlation was found between intelligence and
helmet wearing amongst cyclists ;-)

Best,
Neil

There comes a point where reasoned debate seems futile .....

So one's left with .....

FOYRNB

;-)

FOYRNB ?

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:34:38 +0100, Michael MacClancy
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:56:34 +0100, Will H wrote:

....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

nb - I replied to myself rather than single out one specific contributor in
case one of you suggests that I'm an idiot

Why would that stop anyone suggesting you're an idiot?

I don't wish to be cruel, but that response /did/ make me lol. Lots.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Gawnsoft said:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:34:38 +0100, Michael MacClancy
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:56:34 +0100, Will H wrote:

...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

nb - I replied to myself rather than single out one specific contributor in
case one of you suggests that I'm an idiot

Why would that stop anyone suggesting you're an idiot?

I don't wish to be cruel, but that response /did/ make me lol. Lots.

Oh, is it ironic? I wouldn't know.

;-)
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "He loves nature in spite of what it did to him." -
Forrest Tucker
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Gawnsoft [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

FOYRNB ?

A quick Google revealed:

"[censored] Off You Red Nosed [censored]",

which ISTR was the punchline to a very funny joke, the rest of which
currently escapes me.

Jon