Helmets

Matt B said:

Then .....

Then .....

Then .....

Then .....

You forgot to include "Then the trolls turn up..." but I'm assuming that
was modesty on your part so I'll say it for you.

"Then MattB turns up"

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Timo said:

I'm relatively new to this whole helmet debate.

Up to now I've used one because I simply assumed it offers more
protection than no helmet.

Assuming a helmet does offer "more protection" does that in itself make
it desirable to use one? Surely it depends on at least three values:
what is the base level of danger, by how much would wearing a helmet
reduce it, and what value do you place on the inconvenience? Wearing a
military steel helmet at all times would probably offer "more
protection" against falling masonry, as well as snipers, but is it
something you feel moved to do?

Quoted message said:

A few articles I've read on the subject contradict that assumption.

I commute in a city, but mainly on quiet back streets. Should I wear a
helmet or not?

Read the evidence (google in this group and you will find references to
it ad nauseam) and make up your own mind. FWIW I don't wear one for
most riding. I've had four falls this year, the most recent being last
night. They've all been the type of low speed fall where helmets offer
a good level of protection. Possibly for that very reason though, I
didn't bang my head in any of them.

The only time I voluntarily wear a helmet is in fast chain-gang
training where I think it might offer me some protection against
flailing pedals, shoes and bar-ends, and whirling spokes in a
multi-bike pile-up.

--
Dave...

Tony Raven said:

Matt B said:

Then .....

Then .....

Then .....

Then .....

You forgot to include "Then the trolls turn up..." but I'm assuming that
was modesty on your part so I'll say it for you.

"Then MattB turns up"

Haha.

However, that reminds me of something else that I did forget to include...

Then there will be the "hero worship" or relentless personal attacks
directed at the individual who challenged the orthodox view. Dependent,
of course, upon whether the reviewer has swallowed the orthodoxy pill,
or remains open minded.

--
Matt B

Timo said:

I'm relatively new to this whole helmet debate.

Up to now I've used one because I simply assumed it offers more
protection than no helmet.

A few articles I've read on the subject contradict that assumption.

I commute in a city, but mainly on quiet back streets. Should I wear a
helmet or not?

It probably wont do any harm, but thats not the same as saying it's any
good.

Matt B said:

Others: "*Helmets* don't work"
Devil's advocate: "Yes they do, see these studies"
Others: "*Helmets* don't work because other things work better"
(missing the point about appropriate solutions to the particular
problem in favour of a pathological denial that *helmets* could
ever be an effective solution)

That is a misrepresentation. With speed cameras the claim is that they
reduce accidents casualties by X%. There has been no rational challenge
to these figures, or the methodology used to arrive at them.
The same is not true of the helmet studies, where there is much
conflicting data and claims of effectiveness have been challenged
successfully on rational scientific grounds.

You are transparently trying to compare chalk and cheese to come to a
predetermined conclusion. That does not fit my definition of 'open
minded'.

I am perfectly willing to listen to rational scientific arguement
regarding speed cameras and helmets. So far you have provided none for
either.

...d

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Quoted message said:

who have done
precisely what I outlined. Identified and read the relevant research,
had the skills to interpret it critically, and come to a conclusion.

You missed d) and found the orthodox view "helmets save lives" to be
correct?

That's for the rather simple and obvious reason that, when you have read
the research, you will find that in aggregate they don't. Clearly
helmets /do/ save lives in some collisions, but KSI per billion km
statistics of helmet wearers seem to be very slightly worse than of
non-wearers, so clearly there is a class of accident (and what it is we
don't really know) that helmets make worse.

This isn't to say helmets are useless, of course, or that you shouldn't
wear them. They are very effective in low-speed falls - but those are
not the ones which cause most of the serious injuries.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; my other religion is Emacs

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Quoted message said:

who have done
precisely what I outlined. Identified and read the relevant research,
had the skills to interpret it critically, and come to a conclusion.

You missed d) and found the orthodox view "helmets save lives" to be
correct?

That's for the rather simple and obvious reason that, when you have read
the research, you will find that in aggregate they don't.

You agree with me then the two debates are similar.

--
Matt B

David Martin said:

You are transparently trying to compare chalk and cheese to come to a
predetermined conclusion. That does not fit my definition of 'open
minded'.

Oh, [censored] B's open minded all right. He's so open minded it's all
leaked out and he's reduced to being very very unintelligent.

--
Nobby

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

>who have done
>precisely what I outlined. Identified and read the relevant research,
>had the skills to interpret it critically, and come to a conclusion.

You missed d) and found the orthodox view "helmets save lives" to be
correct?

That's for the rather simple and obvious reason that, when you have
read the research, you will find that in aggregate they don't.

You agree with me then the two debates are similar.

Oh, yes; indeed. You read the speed camera research, you find plenty of
solid work by reliable well funded teams which demonstrate conclusively
that they do save lives, end of debate. You read the helmet debate, you
find that there isn't really enough research done and what there is is
ambiguous and hard to interpret but what it shows seems to be counter
intuitive...

Very similar indeed.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth
;; knowledge increaseth sorrow.." - Ecclesiastes 1:18

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

>>who have done
>>precisely what I outlined. Identified and read the relevant research,
>>had the skills to interpret it critically, and come to a conclusion.
>
>You missed d) and found the orthodox view "helmets save lives" to be
>correct?

That's for the rather simple and obvious reason that, when you have
read the research, you will find that in aggregate they don't.

You agree with me then the two debates are similar.

Oh, yes; indeed. You read the speed camera research, you find plenty of
solid work by reliable well funded teams which demonstrate conclusively
that they do save lives,

Can you actually cite *any*, let alone any that give the 34+% reduction
in KSIs claimed by the camera partnerships?

Quoted message said:

end of debate. You read the helmet debate, you
find that there isn't really enough research done and what there is is
ambiguous and hard to interpret but what it shows seems to be counter
intuitive...

So when E. Towner, et al. of Newcastle University, in their report:
Bicycle Helmets - A review of their effectiveness, said "The critical
review of the extensive literature concludes that there is a
considerable amount of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets are
effective at reducing the incidence and severity of head, brain and
upper facial injury", they were talking utter nonsense?

--
Matt B

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You agree with me then the two debates are similar.

All debates with trolls are similar.

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Quoted message said:

end of debate. You read the helmet debate, you
find that there isn't really enough research done and what there is is
ambiguous and hard to interpret but what it shows seems to be counter
intuitive...

So when E. Towner, et al. of Newcastle University, in their report:
Bicycle Helmets - A review of their effectiveness, said "The critical
review of the extensive literature concludes that there is a
considerable amount of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets are
effective at reducing the incidence and severity of head, brain and
upper facial injury", they were talking utter nonsense?

No, they're using your own favourite technique - deliberately selecting a
small range of studies which they already know support the point of view
they want to advance, and carefully avoiding looking at the rest of the
evidence. It's the Blindmen and the Elephant methodology: if you look
carefully at the trunk and only at the trunk, you will see that an
elephant is indeed very like a snake.

Myself, I prefer to look at the whole elephant.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
;; do it from  religious conviction."          -- Pascal

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Quoted message said:

end of debate. You read the helmet debate, you
find that there isn't really enough research done and what there is is
ambiguous and hard to interpret but what it shows seems to be counter
intuitive...

So when E. Towner, et al. of Newcastle University, in their report:
Bicycle Helmets - A review of their effectiveness, said "The critical
review of the extensive literature concludes that there is a
considerable amount of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets are
effective at reducing the incidence and severity of head, brain and
upper facial injury", they were talking utter nonsense?

No, they're using your own favourite technique - deliberately selecting a
small range of studies which they already know support the point of view
they want to advance, and carefully avoiding looking at the rest of the
evidence.

So, rather than "The critical review of the extensive literature" they
should have said "The selective review of some of the extensive
literature". So they *were* talking utter nonsense? Could you, given
access to the same "extensive literature" that was available to them
honestly come to the opposite conclusion?

Quoted message said:

It's the Blindmen and the Elephant methodology: if you look
carefully at the trunk and only at the trunk, you will see that an
elephant is indeed very like a snake.

Myself, I prefer to look at the whole elephant.

Thats the "Elephant identification methodology" then, if it looks like
one and smells like one then it *is* one ;-)

--
Matt B

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

>end of debate. You read the helmet debate, you
>find that there isn't really enough research done and what there is
>is ambiguous and hard to interpret but what it shows seems to be
>counter intuitive...

So when E. Towner, et al. of Newcastle University, in their report:
Bicycle Helmets - A review of their effectiveness, said "The critical
review of the extensive literature concludes that there is a
considerable amount of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets are
effective at reducing the incidence and severity of head, brain and
upper facial injury", they were talking utter nonsense?

No, they're using your own favourite technique - deliberately
selecting a small range of studies which they already know support the
point of view they want to advance, and carefully avoiding looking at
the rest of the evidence.

So, rather than "The critical review of the extensive literature" they
should have said "The selective review of some of the extensive
literature". So they *were* talking utter nonsense? Could you, given
access to the same "extensive literature" that was available to them
honestly come to the opposite conclusion?

Very easily; and it would be an equally empty exercise. What we need is
not more meta-studies, but more actual data collection. Specifically, we
need to know why the small-scale, hospital oriented studies tend to show
helmet wearing as helpful, whereas the large scale whole population
studies show exactly the opposite. There is something important that's
being missed, but just rehashing old data is not going to reveal what it
is.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Generally Not Used
;; Except by Middle Aged Computer Scientists

Matt B said:

Here's another. Pilkington and Kinra, in a paper published in the
BMJ[1], looking at whether cameras reduce collisions, arrive at the
following conclusion:
"Existing research consistently shows that speed cameras are an
effective intervention in reducing road traffic collisions and related
casualties. The level of evidence is relatively poor, however, as most
studies did not have satisfactory comparison groups or adequate control
for potential confounders. Controlled introduction of speed cameras with
careful data collection may offer improved evidence of their
effectiveness in the future"

I will endeavour to find that one.

Quoted message said:

i.e. With no satisfactory comparison groups and no adequate controls the
research is all junk.

Wrong. Different methodology has different validity. It would be nice
to do a complete double blind trial but that is patently impossible.
There are two sorts of study that can be performed; case-control, where
a treatment group is compared to an untreated group, and longitudinal,
where a site is compared pre and post treatment. Most SC research is of
the latter. They both have their pros and cons. You do seem to
endeavour to twist every study to your own preconcieved conclusion.

...d

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Matt B

(') said:

So, rather than "The critical review of the extensive literature" they
should have said "The selective review of some of the extensive
literature". So they *were* talking utter nonsense? Could you, given
access to the same "extensive literature" that was available to them
honestly come to the opposite conclusion?

Very easily; and it would be an equally empty exercise.

That's what I've been waiting to hear.

Quoted message said:

What we need is
not more meta-studies, but more actual data collection.

And that.

Quoted message said:

Specifically, we
need to know why the small-scale, hospital oriented studies tend to show
helmet wearing as helpful,
whereas the large scale whole population
studies show exactly the opposite. There is something important that's
being missed, but just rehashing old data is not going to reveal what it
is.

Couldn't have put it better myself :-)

--
Matt B

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:48:50 +0000, Matt B <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

So we have to be exceedingly good knit-pickers

<Pedant>

That's "nit pickers."

<\Pedant>

Tim

Tim Hall said:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:48:50 +0000, Matt B <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

So we have to be exceedingly good knit-pickers

<Pedant>
That's "nit pickers."
<\Pedant>

That's one thing we're all quite good at, so no problem there.

Now I'll close your <Pedant> tag:
</Pedant>

--
Ambrose

Tim Hall said:

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:48:50 +0000, Matt B <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

So we have to be exceedingly good knit-pickers

<Pedant>

That's "nit pickers."

<\Pedant>

Shouldn't that be </Pedant> ? ;-)

--
Matt B

Peter Clinch said:

Matt B said:

Research is sparse and interpretation is mainly by vested interest
groups, the anti-car lobbyists, establishment road safety groups and
those who have long since dug themselves into holes.

Where your interpretations are by a vested interest group (you, who want
to go at "appropriate speed" whenever you want without a ticket)

Why the misrepresentation? All I've ever argued for, as you must surely
recognise by now, is to remove the excuse of legitimacy from those
involved in the majority of accidents. The excuse that despite having
been travelling at an *in*appropriate speed, they are immune from blame
because they *were* within the arbritary speed limit set. Speed cameras
*cannot* detect inappropriate speed, in fact I would go further and
suggest that they probably encourage it in many situations.

--
Matt B