Dad stops kid from crashing bike into parked car (+ link to video)

Mark_1973_ wrote:

FrankH wrote:

Dad is running the same speed as the kid.

If Dad falls his head hits the ground from a greater height than the kid's would.

Therefore: Dad needs a helmet more than the kid.

Anybody care to fault my logic?

 

Yes.

i. The child is much more likely to fall than the adult as he is wobbling along on an unstable two wheeled vehicle that he is not yet competent to control

ii. The child is likely to have slower reflexes than the adult

iii. The child's head is proportionally heavier than the adult's with a weaker neck so will have more momentum and strike the ground proportionally harder with greater force

iv. The child's skull is still not fully formed so will possibly be subjected to more lasting damage

v. The child's outstretched arms probably have insufficient strength to prevent his head hitting the ground, should he fall

vi. The child probably has less experience of falling and, therefore, of controlling a fall

p.s. I couldn't care less who wears a helmet but the angle you've approached this from is so tiring. A helmet has saved me from serious injury on three occasions so I choose to wear one.

12 child deaths in motors solely due to head injury in England and Wales, totl child cycling deaths in whole of UK of ALL ijury types, SIX, this is 2016 stats.

Increasing child head weight by 20% in many cases and increasing head size increases chance of head strike when falling.

Child head can withstand greater force than helmet before breaking.

Children wearing 'safety' aids take massively greater risks, ergo more injuries incl heads. Cotton wooling kids NEVER EVER works to make them safer.

Child head injury rate whilst cycling massively less than other aspects in life including playground etc.

Despite this being common https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB1b5cVK138  there were SIX child deaths in NL on bikes in 2016, their kids cycle a shit ton more than ours as do babies/infants with no helmets.

a helmet has killed a child through wearing it in UK.

Deaths/injuries of children from stabbing and guns ... solution, bullet/stab proof vests right?

You have no idea.

Mark_1973_ wrote:

A helmet has saved me from serious injury on three occasions so I choose to wear one.

Unfortunately it proved completely pervious to confirmation bias.

davel wrote:

Mark_1973_ wrote:

A helmet has saved me from serious injury on three occasions so I choose to wear one.

Unfortunately it proved completely pervious to confirmation bias.

If only everyone could be as objective as you eh?

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Mark_1973_ wrote:

A helmet has saved me from serious injury on three occasions so I choose to wear one.

Unfortunately it proved completely pervious to confirmation bias.

If only everyone could be as objective as you eh?

I can post some graphs that don't prove the point I'm trying to make if you like?

davel wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Mark_1973_ wrote:

A helmet has saved me from serious injury on three occasions so I choose to wear one.

Unfortunately it proved completely pervious to confirmation bias.

If only everyone could be as objective as you eh?

I can post some graphs that don't prove the point I'm trying to make if you like?

Only if supported with anecdotal facts.

davel wrote:

I can post some graphs that don't prove the point I'm trying to make if you like?

Resorting to bluster again.

How delightfully predictable.

You've never once managed to provide a decent argument to explain the correlation the graphs show.

Anybody would think that you only resort to bluster to cover up the complete inadequacy of your argument...

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

I can post some graphs that don't prove the point I'm trying to make if you like?

Resorting to bluster again. How delightfully predictable. You've never once managed to provide a decent argument to explain the correlation the graphs show. Anybody would think that you only resort to bluster to cover up the complete inadequacy of your argument...

You're the one with the hypothesis as follows:

Cyclist death rates fell.

Helmet usage rose.

Therefore, helmet usage causes a reduction in cyclist deaths.

The burden of proof is all yours, dear; I don't have to prove a thing. You're getting very unscientific in your complaints. 

As has been said - your hypothesis might be entirely correct. But you're sure as shit not proving it via those pictures you keep wheeling out.

davel wrote:

You're the one with the hypothesis as follows:

Cyclist death rates fell.

Helmet usage rose.

Therefore, helmet usage causes a reduction in cyclist deaths.

The burden of proof is all yours, dear; I don't have to prove a thing. You're getting very unscientific in your complaints. 

As has been said - your hypothesis might be entirely correct. But you're sure as shit not proving it via those pictures you keep wheeling out.

Yawn.

The graphs show a clear correlation between increasing helmet usage and decreasing cyclist fatalities.

That's evidence.

In this context it's likely to be the highest quality evidence available for the period in question.

The onus is now on you to provide evidence to the contrary.

You never have.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

You're the one with the hypothesis as follows:

Cyclist death rates fell.

Helmet usage rose.

Therefore, helmet usage causes a reduction in cyclist deaths.

The burden of proof is all yours, dear; I don't have to prove a thing. You're getting very unscientific in your complaints. 

As has been said - your hypothesis might be entirely correct. But you're sure as shit not proving it via those pictures you keep wheeling out.

Yawn. The graphs show a clear correlation between  decreasing cyclist and pedestrian fatalities. That's evidence. In this context it's likely to be the highest quality evidence available for the period in question. The onus is now on you to provide evidence to the contrary. You never have.

FTFY.

What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.

You're very silly to think that evidence for a sketchy correlation is anything like evidence for cause and effect, which is the thrust of your argument. A mere correlation isn't your point - you're trying to prove it's evidence for helmets causing a reduction. That requires way more proof.

Instead you get all slopey-shouldered and say 'over to you', like that shifts the burden of proof.

You're not right; you're just argumentative.

(BTW, you should get your narcolepsy checked. I've heard that being shit at science is a leading cause - there's probably a graph for that).

davel wrote:

FTFY.

What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.

You're very silly to think that evidence for a sketchy correlation is anything like evidence for cause and effect, which is the thrust of your argument. A mere correlation isn't your point - you're trying to prove it's evidence for helmets causing a reduction. That requires way more proof.

Instead you get all slopey-shouldered and say 'over to you', like that shifts the burden of proof.

You're not right; you're just argumentative.

(BTW, you should get your narcolepsy checked. I've heard that being shit at science is a leading cause - there's probably a graph for that).

Yawn.

Do you think that constant obfuscation makes you any more correct?

There is a correlation between increased helmet use and decreased fatalities.

There is no correlation between the pedestrian fatality rate and the helmet use rate. The pedestrian rate also follows a different pattern to the cyclist rate.

That is evidence to support the hypothesis that helmet use reduces cyclist fatalities.

Is it 100% conclusive. Of course not.

Is it realistically possible to provide 100% proof.

No.

The evidence that smoking causes cancer is largely based on correlation and nobody denies that fact anymore.

The tobacco companies did used to make arguments that sounded very similar to yours though.

Try and provide a counter argument to my hypothesis.

Maybe include some evidence.

You know like some one who isn't "shit at science" would.

I won't hold my breath.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

FTFY.

What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.

You're very silly to think that evidence for a sketchy correlation is anything like evidence for cause and effect, which is the thrust of your argument. A mere correlation isn't your point - you're trying to prove it's evidence for helmets causing a reduction. That requires way more proof.

Instead you get all slopey-shouldered and say 'over to you', like that shifts the burden of proof.

You're not right; you're just argumentative.

(BTW, you should get your narcolepsy checked. I've heard that being shit at science is a leading cause - there's probably a graph for that).

Yawn. Do you think that constant obfuscation makes you any more correct? There is a correlation between increased helmet use and decreased fatalities. There is no correlation between the pedestrian fatality rate and the helmet use rate. The pedestrian rate also follows a different pattern to the cyclist rate. That is evidence to support the hypothesis that helmet use reduces cyclist fatalities. Is it 100% conclusive. Of course not. Is it realistically possible to provide 100% proof. No. The evidence that smoking causes cancer is largely based on correlation and nobody denies that fact anymore. The tobacco companies did used to make arguments that sounded very similar to yours though. Try and provide a counter argument to my hypothesis. Maybe include some evidence. You know like some one who isn't "shit at science" would. I won't hold my breath.

It seems clear you have some odd deep-seated need to believe in high-viz and helmets.  The idea that a simple one-off correlation like your graph is proof of anything is just so absurd as to make me wonder what your motivation is.  Not least when there's an obvious counterpoint in the graph itself, in that pedestrian casualties have also fallen at the same time.

The evidence for smoking and cancer is not just based on eyballing  a single graph and claiming to see a correlation.  Scientific evidence does involve correlations, of course it does, but consistent and repeatable correlations of multiple variables, often at different levels.  Not just one graph at a macro level.

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

(Clearly the onus is on you to prove that Nicolas Cage movies don't cause people to fall into swimming pools and drown and that US government spending on science doesn't lead directly to people hanging themselves)

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

It seems clear you have some odd deep-seated need to believe in high-viz and helmets.  The idea that a simple one-off correlation like your graph is proof of anything is just so absurd as to make me wonder what your motivation is.  Not least when there's an obvious counterpoint in the graph itself, in that pedestrian casualties have also fallen at the same time.

 

The evidence for smoking and cancer is not just based on eyballing  a single graph and claiming to see a correlation.  Scientific evidence does involve correlations, of course it does, but consistent and repeatable correlations of multiple variables, often at different levels.  Not just one graph at a macro level.

 

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

I base my beliefs on the best available evidence.

The balance of evidence suggests that bright clothing and lighting help to reduce accidents.

If the balance of evidence changes I'll change my view.

As for the graph, I've explained multiple times the pedestrian trend differs markedly from the cyclist trend suggesting different causative factors.

A potential causative factor that correlates strongly with the drop is increased helmet use.

If you have evidence that there is another causative factor that could explain the change please provide it.

Most people on these boards simply go on and on about correlation and causation without providing a viable alternative explanation.

Rich_cb wrote:

. As for the graph, I've explained multiple times the pedestrian trend differs markedly from the cyclist trend suggesting different causative factors. A potential causative factor that correlates strongly with the drop is increased helmet use. If you have evidence that there is another causative factor that could explain the change please provide it. Most people on these boards simply go on and on about correlation and causation without providing a viable alternative explanation.

Your attempt to explain away the pedestrian trend wasn't remotely convincing, seemed like obvious ad-hoc reasoning to me.

I'm sure one could find any number of things that correlate with that fall, just as much as 'helmet use' - so what?  That's not enough to establish a causal relationship.  You're making the claim about helmets, its not up to others to find the (probably multiple) causal factors.

For starters, to make a more plausible claim you'd have to look at data about the relationship between helmet use and KSI rates in many different contexts (different times, different countries, different road conditions).

  A bit like the argument that removing lead in petrol caused the decline in violent crime - it's not remotely conclusive and is probably never going to be proven either way (there being so many other possible causes), but one thing that helps that case is the fact that the timing of those two things varies from country-to-country and there's a meta-correlation, in that the correlation appears in different countries at different times.  Something like that would be a small start if you want to claim there's a case.

All you have here is one correlation in one country at one time.

Again, to me you seem invested in wanting to believe in helmets and high-viz (and I mean on a macro, society-wide, level, not just in relation to individuals).  Rather than that belief following from the evidence, your stance seems the other way round to me, you have the belief first, and they you try and intepret things like that graph to fit it.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Your attempt to explain away the pedestrian trend wasn't remotely convincing, seemed like obvious ad-hoc reasoning to me.

 

I'm sure one could find any number of things that correlate with that fall, just as much as 'helmet use' - so what?  That's not enough to establish a causal relationship.  You're making the claim about helmets, its not up to others to find the (probably multiple) causal factors.

 

For starters, to make a more plausible claim you'd have to look at data about the relationship between helmet use and KSI rates in many different contexts (different times, different countries, different road conditions).

 

  A bit like the argument that removing lead in petrol caused the decline in violent crime - it's not remotely conclusive and is probably never going to be proven either way (there being so many other possible causes), but one thing that helps that case is the fact that the timing of those two things varies from country-to-country and there's a meta-correlation, in that the correlation appears in different countries at different times.  Something like that would be a small start if you want to claim there's a case.

 

All you have here is one correlation in one country at one time.

 

Again, to me you seem invested in wanting to believe in helmets and high-viz (and I mean on a macro, society-wide, level, not just in relation to individuals).  Rather than that belief following from the evidence, your stance seems the other way round to me, you have the belief first, and they you try and intepret things like that graph to fit it.

What's your interpretation of the graph then?

Does the pedestrian fatality rate fall significantly before the cyclist rate begins to fall?

As I said previously I base my opinions on the best evidence I can find, if the evidence changes I'm happy to change my opinion.

At the moment I can't see any better explanation for the fall in cyclist deaths than the increase in helmet use.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

You're the one with the hypothesis as follows:

Cyclist death rates fell.

Helmet usage rose.

Therefore, helmet usage causes a reduction in cyclist deaths.

The burden of proof is all yours, dear; I don't have to prove a thing. You're getting very unscientific in your complaints. 

As has been said - your hypothesis might be entirely correct. But you're sure as shit not proving it via those pictures you keep wheeling out.

Yawn. The graphs show a clear correlation between increasing helmet usage and decreasing cyclist fatalities. That's evidence. In this context it's likely to be the highest quality evidence available for the period in question. The onus is now on you to provide evidence to the contrary. You never have.

That is not evidence, at the risk of repeating myself:

Lies, damn lies and statistics

The two graphs you shared are not comparable as they contain different sets of data.
One has details on changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists (built-up roads)
One has reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled (all roads and other)

If you wanted to compare statistics you would need to have:

Statistics on changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists on all roads
Statistics on reported fatalities of cyclists by % of cyclists on all roads

or

Statistics on changes on helmet rate wearing per billion KM travelled on all roads
Statistics on reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled on all roads

Without the above similar data sets to compare no meaningful conclusions can be made as we do not know if hemlet wearers are more or less likely to do longer journeys (or if so by how much or if they wear their helmet at all times on all journeys etc, etc) which would be needed to even begin to get close to being able to draw a conclusion.

ClubSmed wrote:

That is not evidence, at the risk of repeating myself:

Lies, damn lies and statistics

The two graphs you shared are not comparable as they contain different sets of data.
One has details on changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists (built-up roads)
One has reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled (all roads and other)

If you wanted to compare statistics you would need to have:

Statistics on changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists on all roads
Statistics on reported fatalities of cyclists by % of cyclists on all roads

or

Statistics on changes on helmet rate wearing per billion KM travelled on all roads
Statistics on reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled on all roads

Without the above similar data sets to compare no meaningful conclusions can be made as we do not know if hemlet wearers are more or less likely to do longer journeys (or if so by how much or if they wear their helmet at all times on all journeys etc, etc) which would be needed to even begin to get close to being able to draw a conclusion.

If you want to read my response to your comment go back to the thread you cut and pasted it from.

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

That is not evidence, at the risk of repeating myself:

Lies, damn lies and statistics

The two graphs you shared are not comparable as they contain different sets of data.
One has details on changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists (built-up roads)
One has reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled (all roads and other)

If you wanted to compare statistics you would need to have:

Statistics on changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists on all roads
Statistics on reported fatalities of cyclists by % of cyclists on all roads

or

Statistics on changes on helmet rate wearing per billion KM travelled on all roads
Statistics on reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled on all roads

Without the above similar data sets to compare no meaningful conclusions can be made as we do not know if hemlet wearers are more or less likely to do longer journeys (or if so by how much or if they wear their helmet at all times on all journeys etc, etc) which would be needed to even begin to get close to being able to draw a conclusion.

If you want to read my response to your comment go back to the thread you cut and pasted it from.

That won't make it right

From https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adult_cyclist_head_injuries_ve...

davel wrote:

That won't make it right

From https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adult_cyclist_head_injuries_ve...

After going on and on about how correlation is meaningless you present a lack of correlation as evidence...

I don't know how applicable statistics related to mandatory helmet laws are to the situation in the UK.

The paper that the graph is taken from states that a trend away from road cycling may explain the findings as there was an associated drop in collisions between bicycles and cars over the same period.

If there were evidence of a similar drop in collisions in the UK that would actually be an alternative hypothesis.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

That won't make it right

From https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adult_cyclist_head_injuries_ve...

After going on and on about how correlation is meaningless you present a lack of correlation as evidence...

I think you actually might be insane.

Nobody has gone on and on about how correlation is meaningless.

You claimed that helmets resulted in death rates falling.

You presented graphs that show a spurious correlation as evidence for cause/effect.

You then claim it's on others to refute that.

I just wanged a graph up that showed a stronger LACK of correlation between helmet use and death rate decrease than your correlation as a counter to your argument. It's not perfect, but I've humoured your nonsense and it's as valid as your pretty pictures. I'm struggling to see what you can't be getting about this, unless you're just very, very stubborn. Have you considered the possibility (reality, here) that you're just wrong?

davel wrote:

I think you actually might be insane.

Nobody has gone on and on about how correlation is meaningless.

You claimed that helmets resulted in death rates falling.

You presented graphs that show a spurious correlation as evidence for cause/effect.

You then claim it's on others to refute that.

I just wanged a graph up that showed a stronger LACK of correlation between helmet use and death rate decrease than your correlation as a counter to your argument. It's not perfect, but I've humoured your nonsense and it's as valid as your pretty pictures. I'm struggling to see what you can't be getting about this, unless you're just very, very stubborn. Have you considered the possibility (reality, here) that you're just wrong?

Read my posts, I've said time and time again that I'm more than happy to change my opinion if presented with good evidence to do so.

I've also said time and time again that the correlation does not prove causation but could be evidence of causation.

I've yet to see you present any decent explanation for the pattern of cyclist fatalities and its divergence from those of pedestrians.

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

That is not evidence, at the risk of repeating myself:

Lies, damn lies and statistics

The two graphs you shared are not comparable as they contain different sets of data.
One has details on changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists (built-up roads)
One has reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled (all roads and other)

If you wanted to compare statistics you would need to have:

Statistics on changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists on all roads
Statistics on reported fatalities of cyclists by % of cyclists on all roads

or

Statistics on changes on helmet rate wearing per billion KM travelled on all roads
Statistics on reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled on all roads

Without the above similar data sets to compare no meaningful conclusions can be made as we do not know if hemlet wearers are more or less likely to do longer journeys (or if so by how much or if they wear their helmet at all times on all journeys etc, etc) which would be needed to even begin to get close to being able to draw a conclusion.

If you want to read my response to your comment go back to the thread you cut and pasted it from.

to summerise, you asked what other element could possibly explain the changes in fatalities. You were given three plausable causes for this along with graphs as relevent as yours to back them up.

ClubSmed wrote:

to summerise, you asked what other element could possibly explain the changes in fatalities. You were given three plausable causes for this along with graphs as relevent as yours to back them up.

My responses are on the previous thread.

To summarise;
1 was not cycling specific, the other two did not fit the time line so could not be said to correlate.

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

to summerise, you asked what other element could possibly explain the changes in fatalities. You were given three plausable causes for this along with graphs as relevent as yours to back them up.

My responses are on the previous thread. To summarise; 1 was not cycling specific, the other two did not fit the time line so could not be said to correlate.

It does not have to be cycling specific, just to be utilised by that demographic. Otherwise you would have to discount helmet use as they are also used by skaters, skooters, trikes, skiers etc.
All three show significant changes within the period in question and are not just limited to use on  major built up roads so arguably more relevent.

Regardless, if it was helmet wearing that was responsible for the drop in fatalities you would expect the injury rate to stay the same or go up whilst the fatalities go down (as helmets are are there to prevent the injury, not the incident). However it would appear that the number of reported incidents has also fallen over the same period. Therefore you could expect the catalyst to be something of a acident preventative measure (like my suggestion of driver awareness) rather than an injury preventative measure (such as helmets).

ClubSmed wrote:

It does not have to be cycling specific, just to be utilised by that demographic. Otherwise you would have to discount helmet use as they are also used by skaters, skooters, trikes, skiers etc.
All three show significant changes within the period in question and are not just limited to use on  major built up roads so arguably more relevent.

Regardless, if it was helmet wearing that was responsible for the drop in fatalities you would expect the injury rate to stay the same or go up whilst the fatalities go down (as helmets are are there to prevent the injury, not the incident). However it would appear that the number of reported incidents has also fallen over the same period. Therefore you could expect the catalyst to be something of a acident preventative measure (like my suggestion of driver awareness) rather than an injury preventative measure (such as helmets).

They don't show significant change over the same period. Go and look at the timelines on your graphs, they are decades out.

Do you think a significant percentage of pedestrians are wearing helmets? Even including the disparate groups you suggested the total will be a fraction of 1% at best.

So referring to helmets as cycling specific is perfectly valid.

What is the source for your graph? I have very different (referenced) data to that.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

You're the one with the hypothesis as follows:

Cyclist death rates fell.

Helmet usage rose.

Therefore, helmet usage causes a reduction in cyclist deaths.

The burden of proof is all yours, dear; I don't have to prove a thing. You're getting very unscientific in your complaints. 

As has been said - your hypothesis might be entirely correct. But you're sure as shit not proving it via those pictures you keep wheeling out.

Yawn. The graphs show a clear correlation between increasing helmet usage and decreasing cyclist fatalities. That's evidence. In this context it's likely to be the highest quality evidence available for the period in question. The onus is now on you to provide evidence to the contrary. You never have.

Sorry Rich_cb - yes there are correlations between the increase in helmet use and a reduction in cyclist fatalities, however, as much of the reduction in cycling fatalities could be down to the improvement in pedestrian safety standards in modern cars.

There have also been studies which have showed that car drivers are more likely to give cyclists less respect on the road/pass closer etc if the cyclist has a helmet on as they perceive that the cyclists wearing a helmet as being better protected.  In the same way that if car manufacturers fitted a giant steel spike in a steering wheel of a car rather than airbags drivers would be less inclined to drive like a nutjob as they know if they crashed their car they would probably die.

The statistics and figures that are of relevance are those from countries where helmet usage is law, but read in conjunction with the number of journey's undertaken. 

And using New Zealand as an example,  annual cycling use has fallen by approximately 25% since the introduction of the laws - from 39m hours per year, to below 29m hours per year.

Yet the number of cyclists injured has dropped by wait for it - about 25%.

So in conclusion yes a compulsory helmet law has reduced the number of cyclist fatalities/injuries, but how much of that is down to helmets or how much is down to the fact that people cycle less.

Have a look here for the detailed analysis http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html

And FYI I have and always will wear a helmet, but I do so out of choice.  If cycle helmet laws will result in a reduction in cycling then they are a bad thing.

craigstitt wrote:

Sorry Rich_cb - yes there are correlations between the increase in helmet use and a reduction in cyclist fatalities, however, as much of the reduction in cycling fatalities could be down to the improvement in pedestrian safety standards in modern cars.

There have also been studies which have showed that car drivers are more likely to give cyclists less respect on the road/pass closer etc if the cyclist has a helmet on as they perceive that the cyclists wearing a helmet as being better protected.  In the same way that if car manufacturers fitted a giant steel spike in a steering wheel of a car rather than airbags drivers would be less inclined to drive like a nutjob as they know if they crashed their car they would probably die.

The statistics and figures that are of relevance are those from countries where helmet usage is law, but read in conjunction with the number of journey's undertaken. 

And using New Zealand as an example,  annual cycling use has fallen by approximately 25% since the introduction of the laws - from 39m hours per year, to below 29m hours per year.

Yet the number of cyclists injured has dropped by wait for it - about 25%.

So in conclusion yes a compulsory helmet law has reduced the number of cyclist fatalities/injuries, but how much of that is down to helmets or how much is down to the fact that people cycle less.

Have a look here for the detailed analysis http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html

And FYI I have and always will wear a helmet, but I do so out of choice.  If cycle helmet laws will result in a reduction in cycling then they are a bad thing.

I really don't know how applicable data is from NZ to the UK given the compulsory helmet law in NZ and the subsequent fall in cycling. (FWIW I'm also opposed to compulsory helmet laws.)

Cycle use has increased in the UK as have cycle accidents but deaths remain at or near historic lows

Improved car safety might be an explanation but EuroNCAP only started assessing the pedestrian safety of vehicles in 1997.

The fall in the pedestrian fatality rate significantly preceded this and the cyclist rate started dropping from 1994-95 so again before any measurable changes in vehicle pedestrian safety had been made.

Rich_cb wrote:

Yawn. The graphs show a clear correlation between increasing helmet usage and decreasing cyclist fatalities. That's evidence.

The above is merely evidence that you have no understanding of the scientific method nor  of  proof.

Listen to Davel. 

janusz0 wrote:

The above is merely evidence that you have no understanding of the scientific method nor  of  proof.

Listen to Davel. 

So correlation can never be used as evidence?

I'd suggest you're the one who needs to familiarise themselves with research methods.

Mark_1973_ wrote:

FrankH wrote:

Dad is running the same speed as the kid.

If Dad falls his head hits the ground from a greater height than the kid's would.

Therefore: Dad needs a helmet more than the kid.

Anybody care to fault my logic?

 

Yes.

i. The child is much more likely to fall than the adult as he is wobbling along on an unstable two wheeled vehicle that he is not yet competent to control

ii. The child is likely to have slower reflexes than the adult

iii. The child's head is proportionally heavier than the adult's with a weaker neck so will have more momentum and strike the ground proportionally harder with greater force

iv. The child's skull is still not fully formed so will possibly be subjected to more lasting damage

v. The child's outstretched arms probably have insufficient strength to prevent his head hitting the ground, should he fall

vi. The child probably has less experience of falling and, therefore, of controlling a fall

p.s. I couldn't care less who wears a helmet but the angle you've approached this from is so tiring. A helmet has saved me from serious injury on three occasions so I choose to wear one.

Only your first point is specific to the child riding a bike. Therefore, presumably, children should wear helmets at all times?

Mark_1973_ wrote:

FrankH wrote:

Dad is running the same speed as the kid.

If Dad falls his head hits the ground from a greater height than the kid's would.

Therefore: Dad needs a helmet more than the kid.

Anybody care to fault my logic?

 

Yes.

i. The child is much more likely to fall than the adult as he is wobbling along on an unstable two wheeled vehicle that he is not yet competent to control

ii. The child is likely to have slower reflexes than the adult

iii. The child's head is proportionally heavier than the adult's with a weaker neck so will have more momentum and strike the ground proportionally harder with greater force

iv. The child's skull is still not fully formed so will possibly be subjected to more lasting damage

v. The child's outstretched arms probably have insufficient strength to prevent his head hitting the ground, should he fall

vi. The child probably has less experience of falling and, therefore, of controlling a fall

p.s. I couldn't care less who wears a helmet but the angle you've approached this from is so tiring. A helmet has saved me from serious injury on three occasions so I choose to wear one.

Good points.

Agree wholheartedly with point 1, I'd contest point 2 as I believe relefexes will be on a par, if not better than an adult. What will be different will be the option to effectively interpret stimulus and react accordingly. Aligned to point 1, cycling specific reflexes will not have been developed.

Point 3, I agree, but I'd also contest; increasing the weigh and volume of head will only make it more likely that a head impact will take place

Point 4, a childs skull will be softer than an adults and is therefore better positioned to absorb and tolerate head impacts. 

Point 5, this may or may not be true, but as in point 3, the likelood of avoiding a head strike will be lower in the helmet wearer due to increased weight and volume of head. 

Point 6, I agree, but as in points 3 and 5, with less skills to control a fall, wearing a helmet will create a greater need to take effective action to avoid a head strike. 

Personally speaking, I am not convinced by helmets. For usre, there are times when they definitely make a difference, and they will have definitely made the difference between life and death... but equally, the are also times when they are ineffective, and other times when they are contributory to injuries. 

But I encourage my kids to wear a helmet when they are going out, as I know I will, to a degree, be bias due to years of helmetless cycling.