AlmostTrick

Wait a minute...

Your second camp doesn't wear a helmet. Apparently you forgot at least one camp!

Extra points for taking a swipe at VC in a helmet thread. I can't say I've ever thought of doing that.

Hey, if we can't have a little fun in a helmet thread what can we do? Pedal On!

jon c. 

That was intended as a bit of rhetorical hyperbole, but how about:

"Actually, there's a very strong correlation between helmet wearing and danger for the cyclist. It's not causation and it has probably more to do with other factors, but the numbers simply don't support the claim that a helmet makes cycling safer. "

I could find others, but I really don't care that much. I just find the extent to which people will go to justify not wearing a helmet to be amusing. It's like the folks who argue against using lights because lights aren't going to stop a car from hitting you. An interesting facet of the human condition.

venturi95

In the late 70s, when nobody wore a helmet unless racing, my friend went down fast and hard on his head. We were just starting to accelerate on a downhill, he hit a little bump and his hands slipped off the drops. I was drafting him close and almost got caught up in his crash. He took a little chip out of his scalp and was seeing black and white for a minute. I have cracked a couple helmets in accidents. Do whatever you want, I don't always wear a helmet (commuting, dog frolicking, grocery errand, etc.).

avole

Of course not! I was attempting to show people like you that in virtually no circumstances do we have real freedom of choice, for different reasons. Yes; it is illegal to ram a hamburger down someones's throat, but why was it declared such - laws are intended to maintain standards of behaviour and protect the public, as defined by the legislators. Ask yourself how you learnt not to do that, or make huge amounts of noise in a cinema if the film is crap? The second example certainly starts as peer pressure, which is how we learn many things. It may also be banned in the cinema, I don't know. The third example is seat belts, which have had a dramatically positive effect since their introduction, and is a direct parallel with helmets. Few even think that their freedom of choice is being restricted, buckling up is automatic, as you know. The law is there for safety reasons alone, freedom of choice was never a consideration. Surely even you can't disagree with that.

In an ideal society, where people took responsibility for their actions, we would not need so many laws.

downhillmaster

base2 

Conflate
Con·flate (kən-flāt′)

tr.v. con·flat·ed, con·flat·ing, con·flates

1. To bring together; meld or fuse.

2. To combine (two variant texts, for example) into one whole.

3. To fail to distinguish between; confuse.

I'm pretty sure I used the word correctly.
Thus far, aside from posts #18 & #20 Lots of words have been wrote, but little said on the topic.

Though the humor in posts #5 & #7 is appreciated.

Maelochs

You may have understood the meaning of the word “conflate” according to the dictionary but you still used it wrong, and the question you asked is meaningless.

Nonsense.

Please show examples.

Specific citations? No?

What the problem here is, is that there are No real statistics about helmet-wearers’ injuries. There is data about how many of the few people who die on bikes are wearing helmets but nothing on how they died … let alone any mention of people who were injured.

Therefore it is Impossible to “conflate” statistics on brain injury and death. There are no such statistics.

What you are trying to say is that some people act as though only fatalities are counted …. Which is true.

But here is the problem: when people say that wearing a helmet should be mandatory because of evidence that helmets save lives, (not just prevent scalp scrapes in low-speed tip-overs) There Is No Evidence to support that.

But even thought it would be intellectually more honest, “Helmets prevent scalp scrapes and forehead bruises” is a much weaker position rhetorically. Therefore, those people who want to make helmets mandatory, pretend that there is some sort of evidence showing that helmets save lives.

Do helmets save lives? Possibly. How often? No One Can Ever Know. There is no way to recreate an accident to run through it once with a helmet and once without. Some people are certain that they would have died had they not been wearing helmets … and some people are certain the Earth is flat.

I don’t recall ever seeing rational, accurate data supporting the idea that helmets are dangerous (though I have seen nonsense about increased risk-taking—Wholly unsubstantiated.)

Neither have I seen data showing conclusively that any number of cyclists would either survive crashes, or would avoid TBI, if they were wearing helmets.

I have not even seen data about how many cyclists hit their heads in crashes. I know that in more than 50 decades of riding I have hit my head twice—once when traveling about two mph (no likelihood of death or serious brain injury (and the first person who says “you can get TBI from falling while walking” had best where a helmet every waking moment or else is a complete hypocrite,)) and once while traveling about 18 mph, when I broke my collarbone. I didn’t hit my head hard enough to even have a lump or a headache. I just noticed that my head brushed the pavement after my bone broke (literally) my fall, and vice versa.

In every other collision, many involving cars (in the far distant past,) I have hit and hurt about every part of me Except my head.

This is why I agreed that data such as you are seeking would be interesting.

But, please … since you complain about all the worthless words which have been written … prove that your question is not worthless.

Please explain how “Why do people, usually the anti-helmet crowd, but not always, tend to conflate brain injury statistics with death statistics?" is Worth a meaningful response.

Please show examples where people “conflated” these two data sources. Please show us where You found both data sources. If you are going to posit an "anti-helmet crowd,” please show exactly what that means and list all the members by name, since you claim to have actually read and digested their posts and come up with this theory of “conflation” of imaginary data.

But be a little careful. I have Never seen an “anti-helmet” post. I have seen posts against Mandatory helmets but never against helmets per se.

If you have, please quote those posts as well.

You might have done well to have walked away from this thread a long time ago.

ridelikeaturtle

Anyone else tired of this ignorant, anecdote-laden, rambling, individualistic, selfish, libertarian-utopia BS? As if one's actions have no impact on others. "Nothing should be mandatory, because /personal freedom!/"

Seriously, arguing about whether or not helmets save lives? Unbelievable.

Maelochs

Care to offer proof? Not anecdotes, which you shun. Actual proof? How many lives over how many accidents? How many serious injuries are reduced and by how much?

If you are tired of this thread ... there are others.

ridelikeaturtle

The efficacy of bicycle helmets (in the reduction of transfer of g-forces to the head) is so well-established, only a fool would argue against that. But go ahead if you like.

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/24/1/55.full.pdf

... and all the references listed therein.

base2 

Maalox: The stats are obvious if you will draw a corrolary between motorcycle and a bicycle. If you are too lazy to go to NHTSA of CDC to look at the data yourself, & see the corrolation between an exposed rider on a 2 wheeled vehicle in traffic, then theres not much I can do for you.

You're posts are dense, ideological, and miss the point. We are cut from the same cloth, you & I. But please come up with more than "show me the data." Discussing data is not what I am interested in in this thread. In fact, I don't give an eff about the data in this thread. This thread is not about the data. Nor is it about helmet use.

This thread is about how/why people arrive at a conclusion they already seem agree with. I provided 8 examples of mishap conditions, then upon further review, 2 additional "normal" conditions.

It seems to me people weight the 2 "normal" conditions more heavily in their risk assessment. Some of both camps will bend over backwards to defend their conclusion. I get it.

If you disagree with the premise or assessment of the grouping of both camps, just say so. I gather, in your assessment, all people are logical, rational, thinking creatures, & it boils down to "authoritarian controllers bent on orthodoxy" and "freedom loving anti-authoritian defenders of liberty?"
O.k. fair point. For you, the reason you make the decisions you do is "anti-authoritian defender of liberty." And your justification is "absence of acceptable conclusive data."

You sure took A LOT of posts & words to get there.

Maelochs

and if you cannot see the difference between a vehicle which regularly travels at 60 mph versus one which rrarely exceeds 20 mph … likewise.

You are talking about classifying data in ther initial post of a thread you claim is not about data. Let me emphasize: “to adress the issue of stats” Remember typing that?
In which case removing all references to hemlmets shouldn’t change the meaning of the thread, right? Oh, wait … this the read is Entirely about helmets and statistics regarding death and injury while wearing or not wearing helmets.

That is All it is about.

The only person who has “arrived at a conclusion” in this thread is you, to whit:

You arrived at the conclusion there stated. No else said they did that, no one else reached any ‘conclusion” about the different data you claim people are conflating. That is All You.

I have stated repeatedly what I actually think, but since it doesn’t fit your prejudice, you continue to ignore it.

And there you go, lying again to try to win a debate, rather than having an honest discussion.

At no time did I say that. That is Your Inferrence, Your Conclusion.

I am out. If you ever want to have an honest discussion I am around. If you need to deny what you posted, invent ideas and attribute them to others, and deliberately mis-state others’ positions to “win” an internet debate … please don’t bother. It is a waste of your life.

Live as well as you can.

Maelochs

From the cited document: "Cycle helmets that meet UK and US standards have been tested. The mechanisms of energy absorption for frontal and side impacts have been analysed. A good helmet should protect the wearer for impacts up to 15 mph into a rigid flat surface."

Further: “The conclusion is that a bicycle helmet to a recognised standard provides very valuable protection for the majority of accidents, but it cannot protect the head in a high velocity direct impact.”

The paper also mentions that the neck provides almost no stability, so even if the skull were not crushed the neck could well snap at higher loads.

Basically, if you fall over at low speed a helmet will provide some protection. If you take a hard shot, (above about 15 mph) the helmet provides No protection. Once the foam deforms more than 90 percent the shock is transmitted directly to the head and neck.

Same thing I have been saying all along. helmets are good for low-speed collisions. get slammed by a car traveling 40 mph, or ride into a parked van at 20 mph, and the helmet cannot protect the rider.

base2 

At no time did I post anything to "win" an internet debate. You are correct though, I did need to infer your position because after all your words, you failed to explicitly state your position or the reasons you make the decisions you do. Did I incorrectly assess what your position is? Correct me.

Perhaps you do not understand statistical modeling? It is a process where an analogue or a sample is used to build a model do derive a working understanding of a set of conditions.

All possible conditions were listed in order to define or frame the debate to actual possible outcomes. Many of which were mentioned by other posters & provided useful insight to why that person made/make the decision they did/do.

"Provide more data" is outside the possible outcomes afforded by the conditions and reveals your understanding of statistical modeling.

Also, you don't like the way I drew the groups. To facilitate useful discussion, provide a better way of defining the groups involved. Please. Not that it makes any difference, but does "pro-helmet vs helmet freedom" lables work for you?

ridelikeaturtle

As a cyclist, do you have a choice about what sort of car vs bike accident you're going to be involved in, or when? No, you do not.

If you're wearing a helmet, and you hit your head, it will reduce the g-forces imparted to your head.

It is a very low cost to you, both from a financial perspective, and a "convenience" perspective.

In exchange (for that low cost), it could avoid a very high cost to society, in a trip to the hospital, hospital expenses, ongoing treatment expenses, increases in insurance premiums, a cost to coworkers and employers for lost work, and emotional costs to friends and family.

But "personal freedom!". That argument wears thin. Your choices impact others. It doesn't fly for smoking (in the workplace, or any enclosed space, where others are subjected to secondhand smoke), not wearing seatbelts, and increasingly, not wearing a bike helmet.

Lemond1985

"Oh no, secondhand smoke from a helmetless rider. Again!!! I HATE when that happens!"

J/K, carry on. This thread has "Battle of the Titans" written all over it. :

ridelikeaturtle

Is there a way for one user to block seeing specific users' posts? That'd be handy. Then many of us here might avoid going down these stupid rabbitholes.

DrIsotope

Helmets don't make cycling safer, they have the potential to make crashing safer. As I said before, I totally get people who don't wear a helmet-- I've needed mine just 3-4 times in 40,000 miles.

We're cyclists, after all-- we take calculated risks every time we step onto the pedals. Do helmets prevent TBI? Sometimes, I'm sure. Do helmets prevent cycling deaths? Sometimes, I'm sure.

Do I think the helmet will make much difference if I get taken up by a car doing 40mph? Not really. But maybe. That's one of the beauties of being a human-- resilient yet fragile. Nothing is lethal until it is.

Could get pushed into a ditch by a car doing 50mph and be just fine. Could wash out the front tire @ 8mph and die instantly. In my calculation of risk, the helmet makes cycling less lethal. Good enough.

Maelochs

Dude ... really?

First, if you cannot figure out how to use an "ignore" function ... maybe stay off the internet?

Second ... you Do have a choice to simply not read posts by certain posters. That "free will" you scoff at. If you need help controlling your own impulses ... there is an "ignore" function. I am sufficiently in control of my own actions that I just skip the posts or threads I don't want to read, but there are crutches for the weak.

Maelochs

Stop making sense. There is a time and a place for that ... but this is Bike Forums.

Maelochs

My favorite reply so far.

ridelikeaturtle

U mad, bro? Relax.

Now where's that 'ignore' button?

[edit:] nevermind, I found it.

Maelochs

or ... you simply failed to grasp.

My position is that wearing a helmet is a choice and should remain so. Really simple. Not quite sure how anyone could have missed that.

You said your post wasn't about data. Statistics are data. Yet if I ask for data, your "model" built on "data' has no data? You cannot “statistically model” something without base data. You make predictions based on the model, and you base your model on the data. No data, no model.

Yeah ... um, quote please precisely where i said that or anything like that.

I have no problem with your groups, except that without anything but the titles, that's all they are. headings over empty columns. "'List of possible outcomes in a bike wreck--you get hurt, or you don't, you get killed or you don't." Now what?

Listing a bunch of potential outcomes with no data associated is meaningless. Basically, it is "you get hurt or you don't, you get killed or you don't." No Information is provided. The groups themselves are fine, but if all they are is a partial list of potential outcomes ... nothing is taught, nothing is learned.

Your categories seem fine to me ... what do they Actuallly represent? Just themselves?

You basic premise, that people who choose not to wear helmets, cannot tell the difference between a head injury and an unspecified fatal injury, is also completely unsupported.

What exactly do you want to discuss? Do you want to discuss the fact that you began your thread with a false premise?

Consider the first line of your initial post: You start with a lie. No one says helmets do nothing.

How can you have a “discussion” when the opening sentence is not only dishonest, but attempts to demean the people with whom you do not agree?

So … Exactly what did you hope to “discuss”?

AlmostTrick

The only way it could be worse is if that rider was also Taking the Lane. OMG, guaranteed pages of thread!

Hey, I'm sure I'd do my part to support.

base2 

Man, this is like pulling teeth. Maybe if this were in survey form. Lets start with:

Hi, my screen name is: (fill in your screen name)
I have experienced: (outcome "x" of possible outcomes)
Based on that experience, I do: (input decision)
I see people make decisions that: (either same or different) than my own.
I think that may be because: (fill in reason related to what you think their decision tree may have been)

So far there is plenty of people that have figured it out.
That you seem to think possible outcomes of a scenario equals likelyhood, or odds of a particular outcome occuring i.e. "statistics" is puzzling.