Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Paul J wrote:fukawitribe:
fukawitribe: It’s not fallacious. I’m taking the precise logic that commentators have used (“your life was just saved by a helmet, and you’re still saying they’re a daft idea?”, “it’s better than nothing”, “without a helmet you’d almost certainly have [medical details]. … I’d be shopping for a replacement lid.”, etc., etc.) and am simply applying it in another context, where the only difference is “pedestrian” instead of “cyclist”. If it is fallacious to draw the same conclusion, then *bingo* – you’ve got the point!..but I don’t agree with the over extension of their claims either, I never said I did. That the helmet may have made a difference here, I think is not unreasonable here assuming the damage on the helmet was all caused by the strike, i.e. energy was adsorbed by the helmet. It was that over-extension that I objected to, the presumption that the one anecdote would prove the rule, that fallacy – perhaps I should have equally gone after those over-eager to promote the miracles of helmets.. but that jobs seemed to have been done already in this case.
The question then is *why* is it fallacious? The only possibilities are that there is some significant difference between “pedestrian” and “cyclist” that makes it an error to swap one for the other, or otherwise that the logic is simply inherently flawed. If the logic is flawed, then it must be flawed for *both* cyclist and pedestrian!Firstly, the fallacy i’m alluding to is the extrapolation from one incident, even given the injury rates of each group – a cyclist is hit with a wing mirror, a pedestrian is hit with a wing mirror therefore the risk of being hit by a wing mirror is the same or similar in both groups (and hence, the group supporting helmet wearing should argue for both). If the risk were not similar, you could not reasonably expect the group to make a similar risk assessment and e.g. argue for helmets in both cases.
I’m was also maintaining there is a significant difference the cyclist and the pedestrian. My logic was along the lines of – consider the environment in which they are normally to be found, viz the road vs the pavement, consider the average speed of both, the nearness of other vehicles travelling at speed close to them, even the average height of the head above the ground. What I am *guessing* is that the chance of head injury, in particular caused by a wing mirror, is higher, and of a more profound effect, in one environment than the other. That may not actually be as realistic as I thought in general, more on that later…
You say the error is that the cyclist, in the specific case of wing mirror strikes, is more exposed to this risk than a pedestrian. Though, I don’t know how we could evaluate this as I doubt statistics are kept on the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists hit by wing mirrors.True, but unfortunately incredibly relevant as that is the only thing I was really objecting to. My supposition was based in part on the relative number of wing mirrors that might be found on the pavement and on the road, and an estimate of their average velocity relative to cyclist and pedestrian and an estimate of the proportion of pedestrians within a wing mirrors distance from the edge of the road…. i’m sure you can see where I was going with that (even though completely unproven, statistically)
Statistics are available for head injuries admissions though and, AFAIK, though there are some small differences, there isn’t a large difference in risk of head injury overall between the two groups[1].That’s very interesting, as are the conclusions, thank you for the link. What I can’t find there, however, is the incident rate (e.g. head injury per group per mile or journey) which is directly related to my point about proportional risk (what risk per mile / journey of the injury) – that’s what i’m looking at now. The conclusion was also a tad over-reaching for my liking, at least without further qualification, but pertinent to the wider debate perhaps..
Assuming that the difference between cyclists and pedestrians (3.6%) is attributable to helmet wearing, and with helmet wearing having increased by 5.8%, we estimate that helmets prevent 60% (3.6/5.8) of serious head injuries. An estimated efficacy of 60% is very consistent with that of 63%–88% obtained from case-control studies of cycle helmet efficacy. As evidence continues to mount, and consistency emerges between different study designs, the position of the sceptics becomes increasingly untenable.
That said, I had no idea that the rate of pedestrian head injury was so high, so learnt something there, tah.
Increased use of helmets may have lead to a small decrease in rates in cyclists though, however the decreases in head injury tend to be accompanied by increases in other injuries[2]. It is not clear that helmets actually make cycling safer, indeed there is evidence the reverse may be true – KSI rates have not decreased amongst cyclists in the UK appreciably, and KSI rates in AU and NZ increased after helmet laws. All these high-helmet-use countries have significantly worse safety than low-helmet-use/high-cycling-rate countries like NL.Agreed.
So here’s the fallacy: If you argue that helmets make a difference to head injuries, and “every little helps”, then, presuming you accept the evidence that pedestrians face quite similar risks, you *must* also argue that pedestrians should wear them.As above, I don’t agree the risks are similar, so I would maintain it is not a fallacy. I’m open to persuasion though, which is why i’m looking more closely at the figures following your comments.
I just don’t understand people who try claim that “every little helps” and hence cyclists – and *ONLY CYCLISTS* – should wear helmets when on the road. I’d love to hear them explain their logic, or show *evidence* as to how the general cyclist faces different risks to pedestrians to justify the different safety approach (and merely speculating that cyclists might face some risk that pedestrians doesn’t cut it, given we have actual statistics).Fair point, although personally i’ve not – and never had – argued for helmets for cyclists. I am guilty of not checking the statistics closely enough however.
Otherwise, it just seems hypocritical and perhaps part of the UK’s “single out the cyclist” culture (usually for hate) that’s so ingrained, even the cyclists themselves propagate it! Even if that is unintentional on the part of the commentator here, and they are well-meaning. Perhaps it’s some kind of Stockholm Syndrome?🙂
northstar wrote:He’s a
He’s a WHEELSUCKER.Yeah, i’ve noticed a lot of team leaders skulking around behind their team-mates (of all people) until right near the end. The nerve of ’em !
felixcat wrote:fukawitribe
The case is being hit in the back of the head with a wing mirror. More cyclists will find themselves in a traffic flow than pedestrians, other vehicles may be travelling faster than the cyclist, the cyclist is often alongside the other vehicles. More ?The particular cause of head injury is obviously different in different modes of transport. Cyclists don’t often smash their heads into the windscreen for instance. The overall rates of head injury from all causes are what are important if we want to assess the usefulness of a helmet in different modes. These are not significantly different.
Yes, more please.The point I was objecting to was was the extrapolation from ‘people here seem to think the helmet helped’ plus ‘I know someone who got hit in the head as a pedestrian by a wing mirror’ to ‘that first group will surely argue pedestrians need helmets’. That’s fallacious and I don’t personally agree with the conclusion. As for the more general risk assessment, i’m not really in disagreement with you in general – but the original statement by PaulJ came across as antagonistic nonsense.
felixcat wrote:fukawitribe
Proportional risk. Get a grip. If you want me to spell it out to you I will, but surely you can get the basics yourself.Please spell it out for me. As far as I am aware the risk of head injuries for pedestrians and car users is not much different to the risk for cyclists. The risk is not very different in proportions.
Here’s a start. The case is being hit in the back of the head with a wing mirror. More cyclists will find themselves in a traffic flow than pedestrians, other vehicles may be travelling faster than the cyclist, the cyclist is often alongside the other vehicles. More ?
Paul J
fukawitribe,There are numerous comments in this thread effectively saying this kind of accident shows why you should, oops *cough*, the commentators would wear a helmet, even if couched in “I wouldn’t force others”. A direct quote: “every little helps”.
If asking people to apply the *exact same logic* to accidents involving pedestrians getting head injuries is being a knob, then I’m proud to be a knob. If every little helps, I trust these same commentators are also wearing helmets when walking? If not, then *why not*?
Proportional risk. Get a grip. If you want me to spell it out to you I will, but surely you can get the basics yourself.
shay cycles wrote:”logical
”logical fallacy” – a fallacy is either a mistaken belief or in a case like this a failure in the reasoning or logic of an argument. That being the case “logical fallacy” doesn’t quite make sense.Please look up ‘logical fallacy’, it’s not hard and there should be numerous links to examples of it that may indicate why I thought it applicable here.
Then neither does calling anyone a knob!Another article on here today involves an apology for calling someone a knob.
I may or may not agree with what people say but there is no need to insult them for what they say, is there?
Fair point – but i’d grown tired of nonsense parading as logic, perhaps i’m just a grumpy old fuck but it gets wearing.
Paul J wrote:All those
All those commentators here who are so eager to draw the conclusion from the cyclist’s story here that helmets should be worn, will they also conclude that pedestrians should wear helmets? I’m pretty sure that whatever efficacy helmets have for cyclists, they must equally apply to pedestrians who get knocked on the head. So, by the logic of many commenting here, they surely ought to also be calling for pedestrian helmets?Sorry – edited. Lets keep it simple. No, they surely won’t be calling for that and it’s a logical fallacy you’re using. Don’t be a knob please.
tomisitt wrote:Personally,
Personally, for the cost of a power meter I would rather have a week climbing the iconic cols of the Alps or the Dolomites. That would give me far more joy than knowing whether I’m putting out 2.5W more than last month. But each to their own.Sorry – meant to add that I completely agree with this bit in that i’d never spend that amount of money on a power-meter under any circumstances whatsoever. That’s part of another rant I could start about the over-priced nature of power-meters however, and not really what that comment was about.
tomisitt wrote:Yes, I
Yes, I understand that a power meter than be a great training aid, but training for what?The first thing that comes to mind is pacing, in a way that isn’t really possible with things like HR. The fallacy is thinking of needing it to constantly increase fitness – it can, but that’s not always the point.. like always thinking people buy carbon bars because they might be lighter. Sure, I would spend the money on other things too and I go out on the bike to enjoy it… but i’d love to have the option of knowing power. In the end, perhaps I just like the technical side of things as well as the ephemeral. Using power in training with things like TrainerRoad has helped me enjoy my cycling more by minimising the time I need to build fitness and targeting and addressing with weaknesses – I don’t just like churning out miles and I do like a challenge. That is entirely a personal matter and I would never suggest it’s what others should do, but it has positives that some of the more stereotyped opinions of power seem to miss IMO.
tomisitt wrote:Hell, even
Hell, even ceramic bearings (and they’re ridiculous) would make more sense than a power meter.While I agree some with the ‘ride more’ point, this – with all due respect – smacks of not really understanding how, why and when a power meter can be useful. By the same token, an amount of structured training can be immensely beneficial for the recreational, non-racing and/or older rider.
a.jumper wrote:Looks like the
Looks like the damage is mostly above the ear? If so, it might have missed a smaller unhelmeted head.In the picture i’m looking at there is a large amount of damage at the rear of the helmet as well as by the the right ear. Assuming that rear damage was caused by the impact (“I got hit across the back of the head”) I am at a loss to imagine a head small enough to avoid being hit whilst still large enough to control a bike.
Regardless, best wishes to the OP.
enrique wrote:cgipryan
Dave, do you think we should open an “Ask Enrique” thread?…
From what i’ve seen so far of the man, it would just be filled with inane questions from himself with the occasional pat on the back from his little side-kick….How right you are…
Had wondered why i’d bothered, never normally respond to trolls like that, but nice to have been near the mark.
enrique wrote:cgipryan
Dave, do you think we should open an “Ask Enrique” thread?…
From what i’ve seen so far of the man, it would just be filled with inane questions from himself with the occasional pat on the back from his little side-kick….How right you are…
Had wondered why i’d bothered, never normally respond to trolls like that, but nice to have been near the mark.
cgipryan wrote:Dave, do you
Dave, do you think we should open an “Ask Enrique” thread? I, for one, would certainly follow that…From what i’ve seen so far of the man, it would just be filled with inane questions from himself with the occasional pat on the back from his little side-kick….
chiv30 wrote:Can someone
Can someone please explain to me how swift managed to stay in a group of climbers to outsprint them all….He’s a pretty decent climber and he tried really hard maybe ?
was there no attacks on the last two climbs? :OThere were a couple.