Airbag cycle helmet firm Hövding ties up with one of UK’s oldest bike courier businesses

ClubSmed wrote:

brooksby wrote:

"push-bike couriers"? - don't know about you people, but I pedal mine...

and do you do that by *pushing* down on the pedals?

Is that right? I'd thought it's from the original colloquial term for the steerable Laufmaschine which was powered by the rider 'pushing' it along with their feet. Admittedly it's an odd term these days - somewhat akin to referring to a car as a horseless carriage. 

With regard to the etymology of the term - where's @CarltonReid when we need him? 

gmrza wrote:

I think, as is often the case, it is a case of "hourses for courses".  There probably be some cases where this device will help, just as there are some cases where a regular cycling helmet helps (as in the kinds of crashes that happen in racing or high-speed recreational sport riding).  

Once again a quote that demonstrates how far the invidious messaging regarding helmets has progressed.

Here we see a perfectly reasonable argument but based on the fallacy that regular cycle helmets help "in the kind of crashes that happen in racing or high-speed recreational sport riding". There has not been any evidence that regular cycle helmets help in those specifically mentioned kinds of crashes.

I am really struggling with the idea that belief based on heresay and advertising with no evidential basis is taking precedence over facts and evidence.

The helmet stuff all seems a bit like religion in that regard.

Admitedly I do get a bit bothered by this stuff because I come under regular pressure from others about the need to use this peice of PPE that is thoroughly untested in the environment where I'm being told I should use it.

For clarity I'm in no way opposed to PPE or H&S regulations - I always wear correct boots with penetration protection and toe caps in a joinery workshop and face masks and safety glasses whenever appropriate - but there is evidence out there to support not only the need but also the efficacy of those products.

shay cycles]</p>

<p>[quote=gmrza wrote:

I am really struggling with the idea that belief based on heresay and advertising with no evidential basis is taking precedence over facts and evidence.

The helmet stuff all seems a bit like religion in that regard.

Or, there are many people who have had on off where they thank God they were wearing a helmet.  Contrary to your assertion, not everyone is suckkerd into their opinion by "research" and "theory", but by their own experience.   Like the OP says - horses for courses.  Or "hourses" actually, which may be something entirely different...

Bigtwin wrote:

Or, there are many people who have had on off where they thank God they were wearing a helmet.  Contrary to your assertion, not everyone is suckkerd into their opinion by "research" and "theory", but by their own experience.   Like the OP says - horses for courses.  Or "hourses" actually, which may be something entirely different...

And did those people who thanked their god then repeat the collision without a helmet to prove that the helmet actually did something, or were they merely assuming from the scratched/broken helmet that it did something significant?

All the long term, large scale, reliable scientific evidence done by disinterested researchers shows at best no benefit from helmet wearing, and at worst an increase in risk, but hey, who needs data when you've got some anecdotes?

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

burtthebike wrote:

And did those people who thanked their god then repeat the collision without a helmet to prove that the helmet actually did something, or were they merely assuming from the scratched/broken helmet that it did something significant?

All the long term, large scale, reliable scientific evidence done by disinterested researchers shows at best no benefit from helmet wearing, and at worst an increase in risk, but hey, who needs data when you've got some anecdotes?

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

That is utterly laughable.  Seriously, good one!

Bigtwin wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

And did those people who thanked their god then repeat the collision without a helmet to prove that the helmet actually did something, or were they merely assuming from the scratched/broken helmet that it did something significant?

All the long term, large scale, reliable scientific evidence done by disinterested researchers shows at best no benefit from helmet wearing, and at worst an increase in risk, but hey, who needs data when you've got some anecdotes?

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

 

That is utterly laughable.  Seriously, good one!

Honestly mate, don't go there, you're wasting your time..

Bigtwin wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

And did those people who thanked their god then repeat the collision without a helmet to prove that the helmet actually did something, or were they merely assuming from the scratched/broken helmet that it did something significant?

All the long term, large scale, reliable scientific evidence done by disinterested researchers shows at best no benefit from helmet wearing, and at worst an increase in risk, but hey, who needs data when you've got some anecdotes?

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

 

That is utterly laughable.  Seriously, good one!

When I have an accident that scrapes my helmet I generally assume the incident would in all likelihood instead have scraped my head, maybe my logic is flawed due to the protection my brain is getting...

alansmurphy wrote:

Bigtwin wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

And did those people who thanked their god then repeat the collision without a helmet to prove that the helmet actually did something, or were they merely assuming from the scratched/broken helmet that it did something significant?

All the long term, large scale, reliable scientific evidence done by disinterested researchers shows at best no benefit from helmet wearing, and at worst an increase in risk, but hey, who needs data when you've got some anecdotes?

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

 

That is utterly laughable.  Seriously, good one!

 

When I have an accident that scrapes my helmet I generally assume the incident would in all likelihood instead have scraped my head, maybe my logic is flawed due to the protection my brain is getting...

There is also the possibility that the item scraping your helmet would have scraped thin air as it would have been above where your head is. Not saying that this is always the case but could account for some cases hence the debate.

ClubSmed wrote:

hence the debate.

Really?  Really?

ClubSmed wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Bigtwin wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

And did those people who thanked their god then repeat the collision without a helmet to prove that the helmet actually did something, or were they merely assuming from the scratched/broken helmet that it did something significant?

All the long term, large scale, reliable scientific evidence done by disinterested researchers shows at best no benefit from helmet wearing, and at worst an increase in risk, but hey, who needs data when you've got some anecdotes?

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

 

That is utterly laughable.  Seriously, good one!

 

When I have an accident that scrapes my helmet I generally assume the incident would in all likelihood instead have scraped my head, maybe my logic is flawed due to the protection my brain is getting...

There is also the possibility that the item scraping your helmet would have scraped thin air as it would have been above where your head is. Not saying that this is always the case but could account for some cases hence the debate.

Clubsmed, Gravity* is a force which causes objects to attracted each others. When there is a large disparity between the mass of the objects it appears that the smaller object is 'falling' towards the centre of mass of the larger 'fixed' object. This movement can, however, be arrested by stronger forces such as Electromagnetism. Unfortunately sudden deceleration can cause lower density objects to deform. If either of these objects is 'living' this event can deleterious to the health of the organism.

*Gravity is not actually a force, but a perceived acceleration due to objects moving through a curved space-time caused by the presence of mass.

alansmurphy wrote:

Bigtwin wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

And did those people who thanked their god then repeat the collision without a helmet to prove that the helmet actually did something, or were they merely assuming from the scratched/broken helmet that it did something significant?

All the long term, large scale, reliable scientific evidence done by disinterested researchers shows at best no benefit from helmet wearing, and at worst an increase in risk, but hey, who needs data when you've got some anecdotes?

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

 

That is utterly laughable.  Seriously, good one!

 

When I have an accident that scrapes my helmet I generally assume the incident would in all likelihood instead have scraped my head, maybe my logic is flawed due to the protection my brain is getting...

So you don't think the mass of the helmet at x velocity and the additional circumference has any influence whatsoever in terms of where you head would be in relation to the ground?

this is part of the problem, you increase your head size and you increase the chances of striking your head when you come off. For sure the helmet may well do what it's supposed to do and you avoid some bruising and abrasions and a bit of a thick head, however with the helmet you could end up with a TBI that wouldn't have even happened because of the shockwave transmitted through the helmet because it's only capable of about 70 joules worth of reduction on the top most section. As with boxing and gridiron we know that helmets increase TBI rates (boxing found the results since headgear inception shocking to say the least!)

Situations like this are why the stats show no improvement or worse and that despite better medical tech, better impact zones on vehicles etc.

I watched some crashes that was caused by Mark Cavendish from a few years back. About 6 riders hit the deck sliding on their sides, IMHO I would have said 5 of the 6 would not have hit the ground with their heads at all with an unhelmetted head. Additionally because of risk homeostasis we know that riders in competition are taking more risks and crashing more than they ever did, a LOT more and the number of all body part injuries have risen dramatically, that and the number of pro deaths exceeds pre helmet compulsion like for like timescale wise.

Bigtwin]</p>

<p>[quote=shay cycles wrote:

gmrza wrote:

I am really struggling with the idea that belief based on heresay and advertising with no evidential basis is taking precedence over facts and evidence.

The helmet stuff all seems a bit like religion in that regard.

 

Or, there are many people who have had on off where they thank God they were wearing a helmet.  Contrary to your assertion, not everyone is suckkerd into their opinion by "research" and "theory", but by their own experience.   Like the OP says - horses for courses.  Or "hourses" actually, which may be something entirely different...

I see where you're coming from on this, but imagine if many people were thankful that they had their lucky socks on or they might have ended up dead, you probably wouldn't find that as convincing. What's going on is that the anecdote is reinforcing a (not entirely unreasonable) notion that you already hold - that helmets prevent head injury. This is known as confirmation bias. To demonstrate this, if you came across someone whose helmet didn't prevent head injury, you might automatically assume that it would have been far worse if they hadn't been wearing it despite objective evidence. It's just a projection from what you reason to be true.

Sometime reality is non-intuitive and that is why using evidence to make decisions is better than using "common sense".

I'm still undecided about the evidence (though I tend towards being sceptical about the overall benefits helmets) but wear my lucky polystyrene hat virtually all the time, just in case. I tend to object to people criticising other cyclists who choose not to.

DaveE128 wrote:

 

 

I see where you're coming from on this, but imagine if many people were thankful that they had their lucky socks on or they might have ended up dead, you probably wouldn't find that as convincing. What's going on is that the anecdote is reinforcing a (not entirely unreasonable) notion that you already hold - that helmets prevent head injury. This is known as confirmation bias. To demonstrate this, if you came across someone whose helmet didn't prevent head injury, you might automatically assume that it would have been far worse if they hadn't been wearing it despite objective evidence. It's just a projection from what you reason to be true.

No, you really don't. Actually you don't have a clue.  What you are doing is EXACTLY what you are wrongly accusing me of;  being subject to your own confirmation bias, whist bandying around a lot of utterly meangliess tosh "support"for your "argument" like "objective evidence".

Bigtwin wrote:

DaveE128 wrote:

 

 

I see where you're coming from on this, but imagine if many people were thankful that they had their lucky socks on or they might have ended up dead, you probably wouldn't find that as convincing. What's going on is that the anecdote is reinforcing a (not entirely unreasonable) notion that you already hold - that helmets prevent head injury. This is known as confirmation bias. To demonstrate this, if you came across someone whose helmet didn't prevent head injury, you might automatically assume that it would have been far worse if they hadn't been wearing it despite objective evidence. It's just a projection from what you reason to be true.

 

No, you really don't. Actually you don't have a clue.  What you are doing is EXACTLY what you are wrongly accusing me of;  being subject to your own confirmation bias, whist bandying around a lot of utterly meangliess tosh "support"for your "argument" like "objective evidence".

You're highlighting two ways of viewing the world.

1: 'only my experience can be relied upon'.

2: 'only methodical experimentation, observation and objective reporting can be relied upon'.

One of these is subject to confirmation bias. The other is not.

Ponder that while you read this site on your computer, or start the engine in your car, or cook your dinner, or even clip into your favourite pedals.

The scientific method exists pretty much purely to negate confirmation bias. Stop being silly.

davel wrote:

[

2: 'only methodical experimentation, observation and objective reporting can be relied upon'.

One of these is subject to confirmation bias. The other is not.

 

For starters, your assertion that confirmation bias cannot apply is just plain wrong.

More importantly, if one has a brain - protected by helmet or otherwise - one appreciates that what you refer to is not binary.   Cycling helmets are - to me - a surprisingly poorly researched field.  One might suppose and indeed hope that the more cycling takes off in the way it has in recent years, the more quality reasearch and analysis may emerge as, presumably, able people are keen to carry out the research and funding emerges.  Currently, you can find "authorative" stuff to back whichever opinion you happen to hold, or if you are, like me, a helmet agnostic who usually wears one for reasons to do with previous accidents/damage.  Then again, I'm probably older than the average CC reader, so I can (just) remember this exact level of "I'm right your're wrong" nonsense being spouted about seatbelts, motorcycle helments, airbags, various drugs and a bunch of other stuff, which are now, save for cranks, post-controversial.

Bigtwin wrote:

davel wrote:

[

2: 'only methodical experimentation, observation and objective reporting can be relied upon'.

One of these is subject to confirmation bias. The other is not.

 

 

 

For starters, your assertion that confirmation bias cannot apply is just plain wrong.

More importantly, if one has a brain - protected by helmet or otherwise - one appreciates that what you refer to is not binary.   Cycling helmets are - to me - a surprisingly poorly researched field.  One might suppose and indeed hope that the more cycling takes off in the way it has in recent years, the more quality reasearch and analysis may emerge as, presumably, able people are keen to carry out the research and funding emerges.  Currently, you can find "authorative" stuff to back whichever opinion you happen to hold, or if you are, like me, a helmet agnostic who usually wears one for reasons to do with previous accidents/damage.  Then again, I'm probably older than the average CC reader, so I can (just) remember this exact level of "I'm right your're wrong" nonsense being spouted about seatbelts, motorcycle helments, airbags, various drugs and a bunch of other stuff, which are now, save for cranks, post-controversial.

"your assertion that confirmation bias cannot apply is just plain wrong". in the scientific method? Behave. If someone rigs an experiment to prove a hypothesis that they've already decided on, by definition it doesn't fall within the scientific method.

"Cycling helmets are - to me - a surprisingly poorly researched field". Right, now you've made your angle clear, you'll probably find fewer people disagreeing with you. The quality of the research isn't great - agreed. It appeared that you were applying equal weight to 'a helmet saved my life' vs actual research.

davel wrote:

"your assertion that confirmation bias cannot apply is just plain wrong". in the scientific method? Behave. If someone rigs an experiment to prove a hypothesis that they've already decided on, by definition it doesn't fall within the scientific method.

Start your education here:  https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/70c9/3e5e38a8176590f69c0491fd63ab2a9e67...

The just use Google for multiple thousands of further examples that show irrefutably that you are talking complete balls.

My "angle" was and is perfectly clear.  You're just too biased to see it, and you clearly read everything from an already entreched reactionary point of view.

davel wrote:

"your assertion that confirmation bias cannot apply is just plain wrong". in the scientific method? Behave. If someone rigs an experiment to prove a hypothesis that they've already decided on, by definition it doesn't fall within the scientific method.

Start your education here:  https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/70c9/3e5e38a8176590f69c0491fd63ab2a9e67...

The just use Google for multiple thousands of further examples that show irrefutably that you are talking complete balls.

My "angle" was and is perfectly clear.  You're just too biased to see it, and you clearly read everything from an already entreched reactionary point of view.

Bigtwin wrote:

My "angle" was and is perfectly clear.  You're just too biased to see it, and you clearly read everything from an already entreched reactionary point of view.

Thus spake the voice of reason and objectivity...  so perfectly clear that at least one other poster jumped to exactly the same conclusion I did.

You produce that 'dismal science' article as competition versus hundredes of years of actual science? You are floundering. Get back in your chair, wingnut.

davel wrote:

Bigtwin wrote:

My "angle" was and is perfectly clear.  You're just too biased to see it, and you clearly read everything from an already entreched reactionary point of view.

Thus spake the voice of reason and objectivity...  so perfectly clear that at least one other poster jumped to exactly the same conclusion I did.

You produce that 'dismal science' article as competition versus hundredes of years of actual science? You are floundering. Get back in your chair, wingnut.

Oh I though my expression was pretty crystal:  "There is no debate to be had. The only sensible position is "make your own mind up".  "

Your position you convey is one of such astonishing pig-ignorance that's it's hard to believe that you are anything other than trolling.  If you genuinely believe that there is no confirmation bias in science and scieftific result, then you really are a congenital idiot.  As probably indicated by your description of that paper.

Bigtwin wrote:

davel wrote:

Bigtwin wrote:

My "angle" was and is perfectly clear.  You're just too biased to see it, and you clearly read everything from an already entreched reactionary point of view.

Thus spake the voice of reason and objectivity...  so perfectly clear that at least one other poster jumped to exactly the same conclusion I did.

You produce that 'dismal science' article as competition versus hundredes of years of actual science? You are floundering. Get back in your chair, wingnut.

 

Oh I though my expression was pretty crystal:  "There is no debate to be had. The only sensible position is "make your own mind up".  "

Your position you convey is one of such astonishing pig-ignorance that's it's hard to believe that you are anything other than trolling.  If you genuinely believe that there is no confirmation bias in science and scieftific result, then you really are a congenital idiot.  As probably indicated by your description of that paper.

I think you need to look up 'scientific method'. Maybe 'reading comprehension' too, while you're at it. Or maybe just 'English' and 'words'. I never said that there was no bias of any flavour in science or result. Scientific-fucking-method. You appear to be the type of gormless twat who will argue about literally anything.

Or, you might be right.

I just went on to the EPO story to read about that study. The first comment is a particularly low-value waste of cyberspace.

'This bloke's a fucking idiot', I thought to myself. Is that confirmation bias, or am I just correct?

davel wrote:

Bigtwin wrote:

 

I think you need to look up 'scientific method'. Maybe 'reading comprehension' too, while you're at it. Or maybe just 'English' and 'words'. I never said that there was no bias of any flavour in science or result. Scientific-fucking-method. You appear to be the type of gormless twat who will argue about literally anything.

Very good.  Must be nearly time for biscuits and squash in your soft play room?

Bigtwin wrote:

davel wrote:

Bigtwin wrote:

 

I think you need to look up 'scientific method'. Maybe 'reading comprehension' too, while you're at it. Or maybe just 'English' and 'words'. I never said that there was no bias of any flavour in science or result. Scientific-fucking-method. You appear to be the type of gormless twat who will argue about literally anything.

 

Very good.  Must be nearly time for biscuits and squash in your soft play room?

Easy now, don't project your kiddie issues onto me. It really isn't my fault that you're the type of salad who thinks an 'ology' is actual science. You could have been studying a proper subject instead of trying on your sister's bras.

davel wrote:

 

Easy now, don't project your kiddie issues onto me. It really isn't my fault that you're the type of salad who thinks an 'ology' is actual science. You could have been studying a proper subject instead of trying on your sister's bras.[/quote]

So soon? Ask for another custard cream and a story.

shay cycles wrote:

For clarity I'm in no way opposed to PPE or H&S regulations - I always wear correct boots with penetration protection and toe caps in a joinery workshop and face masks and safety glasses whenever appropriate - but there is evidence out there to support not only the need but also the efficacy of those products.

The H&S executive excluded cycle helmets from the designation Personal Protective Equipment, presumably because they had looked at the data and realised that they didn't protect.  This hasn't stopped local authorities and private companies having rules to make their employees wear helmets on H&S grounds.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

And the creep continues.

When you have EU road safety commission focusing on countries like the Netherlands and Denmark and highlighting them as some of the worst countries for cycling based on per capita deaths instead of billion miles travelled you know that there is a serious agenda afoot especially since they then mention helmets in the same paragraph as an explanation as to the greater number of deaths in these countries. This is all contrary to the ECF ethos regarding same.

Yet we know that helmetless riders are safer and less likely to be involved in an incident in the first place.

From the testing I saw of these they might work in very specific circumstances, then again they might not in terms of protecting a rider. What they won't do same as plastic hats is stop an HGV/BUS/tipper wagon etc from crushing you, smashing pelvis, chest and head, nor will it stop some dick pulling out at a junction and all the fall-out from that.

Wonder how many 'saved my life' stories this will produce?

Not trolling, genuine question, is there a study showing this specifically in cyclists or is this statement simply extrapolating risk compensation theories to cyclists? 

gonedownhill wrote:

Not trolling, genuine question, is there a study showing this specifically in cyclists or is this statement simply extrapolating risk compensation theories to cyclists? 

Showing what specifically?  Rather vague, random, non-specific question.

burtthebike wrote:

gonedownhill wrote:

Not trolling, genuine question, is there a study showing this specifically in cyclists or is this statement simply extrapolating risk compensation theories to cyclists? 

Showing what specifically?  Rather vague, random, non-specific question.

The bit that was specifically highlighted in bold in my reply:

"Yet we know that helmetless riders are safer and less likely to be involved in an incident in the first place."