Coroner says cyclist who died in New Forest crash “could have survived” if she had worn a helmet

Rich_cb wrote:

Simon E wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

If your argument is so convincing why do you constantly lie?

You have tried this approach previously and I find it disturbing.

It's disingenuous to accuse someone of lying simply because they either have a different evidence base or differing perspective to you, particularly on a contentious topic like this (and for many an emotive one). It undermines the integrity of your own case so that an impartial observer may think that in fact you are the charlatan, or at least not playing with a straight bat. I hope that's not the case but you're not helping yourself.

If everyone tries to be a bit more grown-up and civil, and stick to facts instead of faith-based declarations, then maybe we can have a discussion instead of a war of words. But the more you entrench your position and hurl abuse the less likely anyone will listen.

The fact is that as helmet use rose in the UK cycling KSIs fell. There was a correlation.* To claim otherwise is incorrect and demonstrably so. If people on this forum insist on making claims that they know are incorrect then they are deliberately misleading people. To deliberately mislead is to lie. *We can argue until the cows come home about the significance of the correlation but you cannot deny that it exists.

Is it a fact that as "helmet use rose in the UK cycling KSIs fell" for all groups of cyclists? I seem to remember the study you usually reference showing the reverse in some groups. Is this not considered misleading not to disclose this in your statements? remember, "If people on this forum insist on making claims that they know are incorrect then they are deliberately misleading people. To deliberately mislead is to lie"

ClubSmed wrote:

Is it a fact that as "helmet use rose in the UK cycling KSIs fell" for all groups of cyclists? I seem to remember the study you usually reference showing the reverse in some groups. Is this not considered misleading not to disclose this in your statements? remember, "If people on this forum insist on making claims that they know are incorrect then they are deliberately misleading people. To deliberately mislead is to lie"

I don't think there is detailed enough information about KSIs and helmet use to differentiate cyclists into groups.

So the statement is AFAIK correct.

If you know of any such data I'd like to see it.

One research paper which we previously discussed showed a larger decrease in paediatric head injuries relative to adult head injuries over a specific time period. I think that may be what you're referring to.

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Is it a fact that as "helmet use rose in the UK cycling KSIs fell" for all groups of cyclists? I seem to remember the study you usually reference showing the reverse in some groups. Is this not considered misleading not to disclose this in your statements? remember, "If people on this forum insist on making claims that they know are incorrect then they are deliberately misleading people. To deliberately mislead is to lie"

I don't think there is detailed enough information about KSIs and helmet use to differentiate cyclists into groups. So the statement is AFAIK correct. If you know of any such data I'd like to see it. One research paper which we previously discussed showed a larger decrease in paediatric head injuries relative to adult head injuries over a specific time period. I think that may be what you're referring to.

That is exactly what I am refering to, there was a larger decrease in paediatric head injuries yet a lower uptake of helmet wearing. 

Rich_cb wrote:

The fact is that as helmet use rose in the UK cycling KSIs fell.

Very quick pick from 2017 stats (PDF available on this page):

"Although the number of pedal cyclists killed on the roads in 2017 was slightly lower than in 2016, the 101 fatalities is very similar to the level seen since 2008. Any changes since that point are most likely to be as a result of natural variation and cannot be attributed to underlying causes."

So did helmet use plateau after 2007?

The charts in the annual report suggest that the number of fatalities for car occupants, pedestrians and motorcyclists all followed a similar trajectory from 2007 to 2010. How do we explain those?

Quote:

To deliberately mislead is to lie.

But are you sure it was deliberate? Would it not be better to disagree and suggest why they are wrong? We all know that statistics can be used to say all sorts of things. Your accusatory tone does not help the discussion. Perhaps you don't want be constructive but keep throwing stones.

n0tanidi0t wrote:

Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now try it without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? Which would do most damage as you increase the force? Now imagine that's a kerb, a tree, a lamp post, a rock?

If that indicates the quality of your knowledge then this discussion has nose-dived. It remind me of the old adage of arguing with an idiot.

Simon E wrote:

n0tanidi0t wrote:

Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now try it without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? Which would do most damage as you increase the force? Now imagine that's a kerb, a tree, a lamp post, a rock?

If that indicates the quality of your knowledge then this discussion has nose-dived. It remind me of the old adage of arguing with an idiot.

Please educate me as to how not wearing a helmet will make me safer and less likely to injure myself?

I've looked through cyclehelmets.org and found evidence to the contrary, but I'm open to having my opinion changed.

Simon E wrote:

Very quick pick from 2017 stats (PDF available on this page):

"Although the number of pedal cyclists killed on the roads in 2017 was slightly lower than in 2016, the 101 fatalities is very similar to the level seen since 2008. Any changes since that point are most likely to be as a result of natural variation and cannot be attributed to underlying causes."

So did helmet use plateau after 2007?

The charts in the annual report suggest that the number of fatalities for car occupants, pedestrians and motorcyclists all followed a similar trajectory from 2007 to 2010. How do we explain those?

But are you sure it was deliberate? Would it not be better to disagree and suggest why they are wrong? We all know that statistics can be used to say all sorts of things. Your accusatory tone does not help the discussion. Perhaps you don't want be constructive but keep throwing stones.

Burt is definitely aware of the correlation in the UK yet continues to deny it exists.

It is a deliberate attempt to decieve on his part.

AFAIK there is no UK wide data on helmet use available for most of the last decade, I think they stopped collecting it around 2008.

So it's impossible to know what the relationship between helmet use and KSIs is over that time.

The other difficulty post 2007 is the emergence of smart phones. This introduces yet another variable.

It's difficult to assess trends over such a short period regardless.

burtthebike wrote:

What is nonsense is claiming that cycle helmets save lives when all the reliable evidence shows that they don't.  For the avoidance of doubt, anecdotes are not reliable evidence.

Can I clarify something about the nature of anecdotal evidence? Anecdotes (well, true anecdotes anyway) *are* reliable evidence. But only of what happened in a specific set of circumstances. They're no guide to what might happen in different circumstances in the future. Even if one could somehow replicate exactly the same circumstances, the outcome might well be different. Or not, who knows?

The point of statistics (speaking here with my statisticians hat on) is to generalise from specific events & outcomes to get some approximate idea of the probabilities of various possible outcomes in similar circumstances in the future. This is useful information for insurance companies, & would be useful too for governments if they ever paid any attention to evidence or facts.

However, it's no use to individuals at all. As we're only ever going to experience one future, not a multiplicity, there's absolutely no way way of knowing whether statistical generalisations are appropriate in any given situation. So... wear a helmet or not, as you choose. It may or may not make a difference, but you'll never find out.

oceandweller wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

What is nonsense is claiming that cycle helmets save lives when all the reliable evidence shows that they don't.  For the avoidance of doubt, anecdotes are not reliable evidence.

Can I clarify something about the nature of anecdotal evidence? Anecdotes (well, true anecdotes anyway) *are* reliable evidence. But only of what happened in a specific set of circumstances. They're no guide to what might happen in different circumstances in the future. Even if one could somehow replicate exactly the same circumstances, the outcome might well be different. Or not, who knows?

The point of statistics (speaking here with my statisticians hat on) is to generalise from specific events & outcomes to get some approximate idea of the probabilities of various possible outcomes in similar circumstances in the future. This is useful information for insurance companies, & would be useful too for governments if they ever paid any attention to evidence or facts.

However, it's no use to individuals at all. As we're only ever going to experience one future, not a multiplicity, there's absolutely no way way of knowing whether statistical generalisations are appropriate in any given situation. So... wear a helmet or not, as you choose. It may or may not make a difference, but you'll never find out.

Surely you mean "we're probably only ever going to experience one future, not a multiplicity".

I used to watch Star Trek, so I know what I'm talking about.

oceandweller wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

What is nonsense is claiming that cycle helmets save lives when all the reliable evidence shows that they don't.  For the avoidance of doubt, anecdotes are not reliable evidence.

Can I clarify something about the nature of anecdotal evidence? Anecdotes (well, true anecdotes anyway) *are* reliable evidence. But only of what happened in a specific set of circumstances. They're no guide to what might happen in different circumstances in the future. Even if one could somehow replicate exactly the same circumstances, the outcome might well be different. Or not, who knows?

The point of statistics (speaking here with my statisticians hat on) is to generalise from specific events & outcomes to get some approximate idea of the probabilities of various possible outcomes in similar circumstances in the future. This is useful information for insurance companies, & would be useful too for governments if they ever paid any attention to evidence or facts.

However, it's no use to individuals at all. As we're only ever going to experience one future, not a multiplicity, there's absolutely no way way of knowing whether statistical generalisations are appropriate in any given situation. So... wear a helmet or not, as you choose. It may or may not make a difference, but you'll never find out.

Anecdotes are not reliable.  If they were factual and backed up with irrefutable evidence, they would be reliable, but then they wouldn't be anecdotes.  Anecdotes are somebody's idea of what they think happened, and are entirely subjective and completely unreliable; that's why there are so many cases of injustice because of faulty memory and indentification.

Stats are indeed useful to organisations, but they are also useful to individuals, and only a fool would ignore stats which have a very high degree of confidence of outcome, which define the level of risk.  It may be true that in vanishingly unlikely circumstances, a helmet could save a life, but when robust epidemiological studies show no benefit, or even an increase in risk from helmet wearing, there is more chance of winning the lottery every week for a year.

Statistics are a very good way of predicting the outcome for an individual in any given situation, and are far from irrelevant as you claim.

brooksby wrote:

aegisdesign wrote:

"I must stress that cycle helmets do save lives."

Something the helmet manufacturers do not claim themselves.

I read an article about that recently, and the author said he could not get any helmet company to say that their helmets provided actual protection or could save lives.  Not one.  If that's the case, well then polystyrene is not really my hat material of choice, m'kay?

no one will because if you have an accident and it doesn’t save your life the lawyers come out

aegisdesign wrote:

"I must stress that cycle helmets do save lives."

Something the helmet manufacturers do not claim themselves.

Why bother when you can leave it to the idiots at Winchester Coroner’s Court

aegisdesign wrote:

"I must stress that cycle helmets do save lives."

Something the helmet manufacturers do not claim themselves.

That is simply because if they did and somebody fell off and was killed the cycle helmet company with be open to a massive law suit as making such a claim would imply that even if they got run over by a tank the helmet would still save their lives, well I suspect this coroner would think so anyway.

To be fair though, the coroner knows a hell of a lot more about the accident and injury than we do, there are absolutely crashes where a helmet could save a life and there are far more where it wouldn't.

brooksby wrote:

The Echo article says she fell off on a downhill and hit her head on the road, fracturing her skull.  Would a typical helmet protect from a fall from a moving bicycle, going downhill at (presumably) speed?  I'd thought not...

My head is still on after falling downhill at 50kph on my head.

Whether or not I would have been going around a wet downhill bend at 50kph in winter if I hadn't been wearing a helmet is a different argument... The psychological aspect wasn't a factor in the deceased's misfortune.

longassballs wrote:

brooksby wrote:

The Echo article says she fell off on a downhill and hit her head on the road, fracturing her skull.  Would a typical helmet protect from a fall from a moving bicycle, going downhill at (presumably) speed?  I'd thought not...

  My head is still on after falling downhill at 50kph on my head. Whether or not I would have been going around a wet downhill bend at 50kph in winter if I hadn't been wearing a helmet is a different argument... The psychological aspect wasn't a factor in the deceased's misfortune.

I had the same experience and was glad I wore a helmet too.

I don't understand all the hate about this, it reminds me of the debates we have regarding vaccines on the other side of the Channel.

brooksby wrote:

The Echo article says she fell off on a downhill and hit her head on the road, fracturing her skull.  Would a typical helmet protect from a fall from a moving bicycle, going downhill at (presumably) speed?  I'd thought not...

Why would you say that?  I have had 5 crashes in the last 3 years, all my own fault.  In four of the five, my helmeted head definitely hit the road, and probably the 5 too.  In my anecdotal experience, you are almost guaranteed to hit your head on the road when you crash.  I'm not saying my helmet saved my life or anything that dramatic, but I'm fairly sure my injuries would have been worse without it, and I am glad I had it on.  Two of these accidents were on ice, one very slow but I still broke my wrist, one nearer 15 mph and no lasting damage.  One was on a downhill road with a a group of mates who all got round the slight kink in the road with mud and gravel covering it, the 4th (and 5th) were going downhill, I got the speed wrong for the corner I was trying to get round. 

Maybe without a helmet, I would have made more of an effort to not let my head hit the road, who knows.  

I happen to wear a helmet whenever I ride my bike, but like a lot of people here I do not want them to be made compulsory.  I know you are more likely to hurt yourself getting out of the bath than out on a bike ride.  It's people's choice whether they wear one or not, but if you think they are of no benefit in any situation, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

Why would you say that?  I have had 5 crashes in the last 3 years, all my own fault.  In four of the five, my helmeted head definitely hit the road, and probably the 5 too.  In my anecdotal experience, you are almost guaranteed to hit your head on the road when you crash. 

Or you are far more likely to hit your head when you wear a helmet, a fact which has been demonstrated any number of times.  This is one explanation of the thousands of "helmet saved my life" stories, where the cyclist holds up a broken helmet and makes that claim, but without the helmet, they wouldn't have hit their head.

Mungecrundle wrote:

What is that? Some kind of squirrel themed sanitary product?

Dammit I need to clean my keyboard now. Coffee everywhere.

Mungecrundle wrote:

What is that? Some kind of squirrel themed sanitary product?

It's clearly a squirrel shaped piece of popcorn.

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

What is that? Some kind of squirrel themed sanitary product?

It's clearly a squirrel shaped piece of popcorn.

You Sir, are a genius.