End of debate?

Python.

Python.

What’s your basis for suggesting that helmets ‘can’t prevent brain injury’?

Clearly they can and do (spread force over a larger area, increase the deceleration zone)

Brain injury:” insult to the brain from an external mechanical force, possibly leading to permanent or temporary impairment of cognitive, physical, and psychosocial functions,”

Griff500 wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

davel wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

 

As per Darvel, you seem very keen to tell us all what doesn’t work. Why not enlighten us as to what would be better?

 

Read very slightly between the lines in my posts and you can very clearly see that either – We separate cyclists from vehicles properly

I don’t even need to read between the lines of your posts to see that this is just another idea you have dismissed, or did you forget writing this: “we all know that we’ll be on the roads with vehicles for the forseeable future, and so will our kids, maybe grandkids”.

 

Fluffykitten has also comprehensively dismissed the suggestion that we educate drivers. We all know that helmets aren’t perfect, and poster after poster quoting figures to remind us of that without proposing anything better is not moving us forward.

 

There’s your first problem: I’m not dismissing it entirely. I wear a helmet. Fat lot of good it’ll do me if I get rear-ended at 45mph on tomorrow’s commute. That’s your second problem.

I’m just appealing for proportion. I see me ranting about victim blaming and helmets not being a panacea and not kowtowing to a culture and propaganda machine that churns out guff like today’s apparent THINK! hgv advert as more positive than laughing at ‘flat earthers’ for questioning research that clearly needs to be questioned.

Griff500 wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

I have noticed a tendency here for people to say cycling is different to everything else, therefore the experience gained in other sports is irrelevant,

And that’s why your reasoning is flawed. Who said anything about ‘sports’? What does sport have to do with it?

Sorry, I tend to use English as per the Oxford English dictionary (Definition of cycling: The sport or activity of riding a bicycle), and for me cycling is a sport not a commute, but hell yes, lets argue semantics, rather than having a constructive debate around what we all agree is a problem.  That will get us far

As per Darvel, you seem very keen to tell us all what doesn’t work. Why not enlighten us as to what would be better?

 

Read very slightly between the lines in my posts and you can very clearly see that either

– We separate cyclists from vehicles properly
– We stop drivers hitting cyclists that share the same carriageways (let’s say we make close passes, phone use, shit excuses as socially unacceptable as drink driving, or ‘think bike’ include push bikes as well as motorbikes).

Deliberately obtuse cyclists like you really boil my piss. You would seemingly rather invest effort in making a trivial point on an Internet forum vs fellow cyclists while ignoring the Stats regarding the actual cause of cyclist KSIs than put equivalent effort into doing us all a favour.

It is not rocket (or even fucking styrofoam) science. It’s basic probability. Wear your lid, as will I. As long as we keep getting hit by vehicles it matters jack shit. Read the figures please.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

I have noticed a tendency here for people to say cycling is different to everything else, therefore the experience gained in other sports is irrelevant,

And that’s why your reasoning is flawed. Who said anything about ‘sports’? What does sport have to do with it?

Sorry, I tend to use English as per the Oxford English dictionary (Definition of cycling: The sport or activity of riding a bicycle), and for me cycling is a sport not a commute, but hell yes, lets argue semantics, rather than having a constructive debate around what we all agree is a problem.  That will get us far

As per Darvel, you seem very keen to tell us all what doesn’t work. Why not enlighten us as to what would be better?

Ban helmets, ban seatbelts,

Ban helmets, ban seatbelts, airbags, soft furnishings in cars too.

What are the bets the accident and death rate go down, for all concerned, a lot?

..actually, having seen

..actually, having seen madcarews reply i’m off to do some reading myself too.

Oh. Python. Bud!

Oh. Python. Bud!

I have just spent a few hours reading the delightful Curnow, as well as some of the studies he references. 

First of all, the onus in any scientific debate or discussion is on the claimant (he who makes the claim) providing the evidence to back it up. This would make it incumbent on you to provide evidence of your various claims, rather than pleading with your reader / adversary to provide the material for you to refute.

Now, I’m not going to reference all of this because it’s way too tedious, and you weren’t good enough to provide any references for your various claims (Increased head circumference leads to increased head strike; Large numbers of accidents being the result of ambition exceeding ability; The increased heat in the head from helmets etc etc etc). However if you do care to do any reading , do read associated studies referred to by the good Curnow. You will find plenty of the figures and associated evidence you so crave.

I found 7 published works by Curnow on the topic of efficacy of Bike helmets. All of these were analysis of other studies and in particular meta studies. Curnow decried the validity of all the metastudies on the basis that they didn’t follow appropriate scientific rigour, that is they didn’t provide a hypothesis and test it against the evidence provided (which is not really the purpose of a metastudy). First of all he should do some philosophical reading, starting with the excellent “What is this thing called Science” by Chalmers. He would find that much science doesn’t actually follow the observation- hypothesise- test paradigm. And that doesn’t reduce the validity of it. I’ll leave you to read the book yourself to discover why. It really is worth the read.

The good Curnow then, in his analysis, failed to provide hypotheses and then test them, which makes him simply a commentator, and one providing non-peer reviewed commentary at that (5 out of 7 of his studies  / commentaries were posted in Elsevier, which as you know doesn’t require peer review before publishing.)

Mr Curnow repeatedly made the claim that ignoring angular acceleration invalidated the test results of the helmet studies. However he provided no evidence whatso ever to show that this was the case (this would be a/ the facts and numbers that you so rigorously insist upon, and b/ the ‘hypothesis and test’ method he is so insistent on others  using.) His arguments relied on the following ideas:

• That bike helmets ‘evolved from the development of soldiers’  and safety helmets’ which rely on a stationary head being struck by a smaller object. I’m sure the majority of modern helmet manufacturers would be surprised, but particularly Bell and MSR who did the initial development work on which most further helmets are based, and they based that work on motorsport and mountaineering, where the emphasis was on a moving cranium vs solid object. 
• That the purpose of bike helmets is to prevent fatal or brain damaging injury which largely is a result of penetration or fracture of the skull. However, in spite of discussing work dating back to 1786, he provides no evidence to support his assertion other than that was the original concern which instigated the adoption of bicycle helmets. It is very fair to expect that as technologies improve, and adoption of safety protocols increase, the uses and priorities change. Seatbelts were initially placed in cars to prevent people being ejected from the vehicle in accidents. However, although this remains a primary effect of a seatbelt, it is no longer their primary focus. Likewise, initially helmets were hardshelled, which had been shown to be effective against penetration and crushing (of the cranium), however they became softshelled when it became apparent that it made them more likely to be used, and no less effective in their primary need which is to spread the impact over a larger area (Fahlstedt, Halldin& Kleiven)
• That ignoring the role of angular acceleration on the incidence of brain injury invalidated the studies. However, he didn’t manage to provide any evidence that I could see, based on observation and testing, that just because angular acceleration was ignored, the observed results were invalidated.
• That bias on the part of the authors and sponsors invalidated the studies. However, Mr Curnow makes no secret of his anti-helmet stance, and his belief that they are deeply flawed in application. That is he is deeply biased, and does nothing to add to the body of evidence, spending his efforts solely on debunking the efforts of those who do provide the raw material for his work is ironic….. something I’m sure you’d never do.

So. I have read your study, and seen much to recommend that you spread your reading a little further than just one study that backs up your preconceived notions, and wider than one biased author who has done little more than criticise the work of others, without actually providing a hypothesis that he dares to test or defend.

Please note, I’m not arguing here whether or not helmets prevent injury / death  or are a good or bad idea, I’m simply replying to a couple of the points you raised, and pointing you in the direction of the evidence you are so keen on being provided with. 

Do get back to us when you’ve done  a variety and depth of reading, preferably from more than one viewpoint.

Griff500 wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

davel wrote:

The danger differs, depending on the type, so is difficult to quantify, isn’t it?

But the bulk of the risk faced by cyclists comes from being driven into by vehicles. A helmet doesn’t prevent that – I’d like to see much more effort and resources spent effectively on stuff that does.

Yep. Risk is different in each case, which is precisely why people need to accept it and quantify it. I thought I’d answered your other question but here goes: Drivers and cyclists both need to be educated to the fact there is risk, and how to minimise it. Pussy footing around telling people there is no danger in cycling when we have regular incidents which prove otherwise does nobody any good.

What ‘regular incidents which prove otherwise’? Are you referring to the ones involving, and mostly caused by, motorised vehicles? They show the danger in driving, not in cycling. I think that’s where your reasoning falls down, as you are shifting those numbers into the wrong column.

And again there’s that mantra about ‘education’, which has never worked, never will work, and ends up just being a means of avoiding doing anything. Not to mention the inaccurate implication the situation is symmetrical with drivers and cyclists having ‘equal’ responsibility.