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

alansmurphy wrote:

Rich's lack of understanding on basic statistical principles is quite funny but BTBS is equally as deluded:

"Disclaimer, I am anti helmet, as a whole to society they cause misery, exclusion, unjust/unlawful action by government, remove freedoms, increase danger and always lower the responsibility of those posing the harm without any increase in safety nor health.
the kids in my care never wear helmets, we ride on the roads, in parks trails etc."

If you're talking compulsory use then some of your arguments are correct. However, suggesting they increase danger and have no increase in safety is mind blowingly stupid!

What basic statistical principle have I misunderstood?

alansmurphy wrote:

Rich's lack of understanding on basic statistical principles is quite funny but BTBS is equally as deluded: "Disclaimer, I am anti helmet, as a whole to society they cause misery, exclusion, unjust/unlawful action by government, remove freedoms, increase danger and always lower the responsibility of those posing the harm without any increase in safety nor health. the kids in my care never wear helmets, we ride on the roads, in parks trails etc." If you're talking compulsory use then some of your arguments are correct. However, suggesting they increase danger and have no increase in safety is mind blowingly stupid!

If through wearing helmets you push the onus of safety on to the vulnerable my safety goes down.

if you push the onus of safety on to the vulnerable the safety of EVERYONE goes down, this includes motorists too.

these are simple facts and are shown in that not only are those posing the harm allowed to do pretty much whatever they like and not be punished at all (Michael Mason is an extreme but not unusual example) thus those posing the harm don't think they are doing anything wrong so continue to pose harm/behave unlawfully. But, blame is pushed onto victims to the point of no compensation or reduced ompensation in courts and governement not protecting the vulnerable but telling them to wear 'safety' aids as the primary method of protection which is proven to fail at all quarters and the police instead of looking at the primary cause of incidents they look at how the vulnerable haven't protected themselves and thus don't even prosecute/let off those doing the harm, again increasing the safety of the vulnerable.

Helmets put off people from cycling, again a known, reduce the numbers cycling, you reduce the overall safety. One of the main reasons people do not cycle is because of the safety factor, focussing on 'safety' aids for the vulnerable that we know doesn't work and in some countries will penalise/criminalise you, that safety factor is influenced in a negative way partly because of helmets.

it isn't rocket science and you calling it mindblowingly stupid makes you the stupid one for ignoring which is in plain sight and we see the result of how helmets have not made it safer at all, so unsafe are helmets that not just individually are they more detrimental they are so unsafe due to the weakness of the helmet itself and the (to some) unexpected outcomes, that any tiny benefit for a small fraction of incidents one that we as a society ignore in every other aspect of life as being trivial or should not be pushed for helmet use that we see a worse overall safety aspect regarding injuries/harm to helmet wearers compared to unhelmetted.

Again, this is shown in several sports as I mentioned, not just cycling and you again deny that cycling is less safe with helmet wearing and that helmet wearing does not pose a negative effect on the safety of everyone!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Rich's lack of understanding on basic statistical principles is quite funny but BTBS is equally as deluded: "Disclaimer, I am anti helmet, as a whole to society they cause misery, exclusion, unjust/unlawful action by government, remove freedoms, increase danger and always lower the responsibility of those posing the harm without any increase in safety nor health. the kids in my care never wear helmets, we ride on the roads, in parks trails etc." If you're talking compulsory use then some of your arguments are correct. However, suggesting they increase danger and have no increase in safety is mind blowingly stupid!

 

If through wearing helmets you push the onus of safety on to the vulnerable my safety goes down.

if you push the onus of safety on to the vulnerable the safety of EVERYONE goes down, this includes motorists too...

But, blame is pushed onto victims to the point of no compensation or reduced ompensation in courts and governement not protecting the vulnerable but telling them to wear 'safety' aids as the primary method of protection which is proven to fail at all quarters and the police instead of looking at the primary cause of incidents they look at how the vulnerable haven't protected themselves and thus don't even prosecute/let off those doing the harm, again increasing the safety of the vulnerable.

 

Helmets put off people from cycling, again a known, reduce the numbers cycling, you reduce the overall safety. 

 

it isn't rocket science and you calling it mindblowingly stupid makes you the stupid one for ignoring which is in plain sight and we see the result of how helmets have not made it safer at all, so unsafe are helmets that not just individually are they more detrimental they are so unsafe due to the weakness of the helmet itself and the (to some) unexpected outcomes

 

Again, this is shown in several sports as I mentioned, not just cycling and you again deny that cycling is less safe with helmet wearing and that helmet wearing does not pose a negative effect on the safety of everyone!

Are we not starting to stray into compulsary wearing territory and the victim blaming is really extending to you.

Of course the onus shouldn't be on the vulnerable road user, if a car is driven terribly and hits them then what they're wqearing shouldn't matter a jot. This is about education, enforcement and punishment and should have nothing to do with attire. On the other hand, if hit I'd rather be wearing a lid than not! Any example you give (so long as compulsary doesn't come into it) are external factors and behaviours, if everyone behaved as they should do you would be better with a helmet than not.

To say they've not made it safer at all is MBS (my new acronym) again, I have experienced how it made it safer for me as one prevented serious damage when I had a crash, there we are safer for 1. You can argue all you like that I became a maverick due to wearing a lid, not true, I just messed up.

As for defects, again even a lid that isn't quite as strong as anticipated is likely to be better than none. Lets both sit in a chair and drop slabs of concrete on our head and compare my lid to your non lid, hmm MBS!

Strangely, I agree with many of your points in terms of victim blaming and potential to put people off. You may have seen this by my reactions to headmasters thinking they can impart the laws upon school children or commenting when Police have mentioned riders clothing or riding single file. I am all for free choice and understanding of risk reward, I too agree with helmet salesman Mr Boardman in that it's a long way down the list of issues that need resolving. But when a helmet costs peanuts and can save your life, you'd have to be pretty thick skulled to not consider one!

alansmurphy wrote:

 

Of course the onus shouldn't be on the vulnerable road user, if a car is driven terribly and hits them then what they're wqearing shouldn't matter a jot. This is about education, enforcement and punishment and should have nothing to do with attire.

But the pushing of helmets (by manufacturers, organising bodies, the general public [both cyclists and not]) has created the situation where there is pressure, culturally (I'm not comparing this with mandated by law) to wear one. Large numbers of cyclists do.

And if that creates the impression of danger, which results in fewer cyclists, then yes: that makes it less safe for all of us, if you believe in 'safety in numbers' (more cyclists = safer cyclists), as I do.

I've kind of 'fallen' into wearing one. All the triathlons I've done (I might have done a couple of sprints BITD which didn't mandate them, but since I've got back into more 'serious' ones you have to have a helmet), and British Cycling events - they mandate them. I think it's only TTs that don't demand them, and I've got so used to wearing one in races I wear one to those too.

And, buying one for tris, I didn't want to just be getting used to it on race day, so I wore it for commuting and training. Then I realised it was OK at keeping your head dry and warm during a winter commute, and it's a handy place to strap a rear light to, which I do believe makes you safer, and before you know it... it's crept up on me: I'm wearing a helmet more often than not.

I've never 'needed' one; never been in a situation where I'm glad I had one or wished I'd worn one. I've never fallen off onto my head, with or without a helmet. I honestly have no clue how much safer or otherwise wearing one makes me, considering all the variables, a collision I haven't had yet, risk compensation, driver behaviour... there's way too much noise to make a rational decision on that.

But I do believe that us all wearing them makes us all  slightly less safe, because it contributes to fewer cyclists, and I feel slightly guilty about just accepting that situation, largely because I just wanted to do triathlons.

And just tilt this perspective slightly. Think of exactly the same situation, but apply it to pedestrians: the creeping use of helmet-wearing, with little-to-no compelling overall argument for their efficacy; walking event organisers demanding you wear a helmet because you might be safer if you slip on your head halfway up Snowdon; people on forums arguing that you're an idiot for not thinking it will make you safer if a roof slate fell on your head or if you slipped and banged your head on a kerb*; court cases regarding pedestrians who'd been killed by dangerous driving actually discussing whether the pedestrian was wearing one or not...

We don't need a compulsion law for it to already be a pretty sick state of affairs, if you ask me.

*about 6 times the number of deaths from cycling result from a fall down steps, in the UK.

don simon wrote:

Anyway, ClubSmed, there's no "e" in argument, but thanks for your time.

O... kay...

alansmurphy wrote:

You looking like a c**t?

Yes we're all familiar with it here...

Yawn.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Rich cb, you're comedy gold, you're so clueless as to be dangerous much like other helmet promoters/believers.
You cannot produce any worthwhile 'evidence' and show ridiculous confirmation bias much like Jake Olivier who not onlytotally disregarded his own advice on meta-analysis in his attempt to prove helmets work but also used a method that is ridiculously flawed and has been outed as such that it proves diddly squat.
The sad thing is you and your ilk ignore the facts regarding the dangers of head injuries in other walks of life, not just other modes of transport but everything else.
1.4Million head injuries that have being reported, approx 160,000 admitted into hospital in the UK alone. And yet you'll only wear/promote helmets for cycling, you and your cohorts are truly insane.
Disclaimer, I am anti helmet, as a whole to society they cause misery, exclusion, unjust/unlawful action by government, remove freedoms, increase danger and always lower the responsibility of those posing the harm without any increase in safety nor health.
the kids in my care never wear helmets, we ride on the roads, in parks trails etc.
This not just my own son who understood the stupidity of helmets (and rode to school for 7 years on a NSL road leading into a busy road full of wanka parents in their motors) but also friends kids and also my grandkids.
Even my 7 year old grandson gets it, he's reckless as theycome hasADHD but grasps that he would take even more risk if he felt safer, this is proven beyond ddoubt but helmet zealots deny ithas any effect on behaviour. Fuck, you only have to watch the pros to see the results of helmet wearing and how many more die and get injured sInce compulsion despite all the advantages of better brake, tyres, more marshalls/barriers and massively improved medicare on course.
Helmetzealots ignore that in boxing there was a massive increase in TBIs after headgear was made compulsory, ignore that gridiron got moredangerous re head injuries when headgear was brought in (massively less tbi in rugby), ignore that head trauma in skiing hasn't gone down despite almost universal wearing.
Yep, helmet proponants are very much insane and those wearing are part of the bigger picture problem that normalises something that is harmful to us all.
That's why I'll constantly debate it ,thats why im anti helmet

A lecture on bias from BTBS.

There's nobody on this site with less of a clue about risk than you, you constantly confuse absolute and relative risk and can't seem to grasp why they should be treated differently.

Stick to your illuminati migration conspiracy theories. They make more sense than your helmet posts.

CygnusX1 wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

I base my beliefs on the best available evidence.

The "best" evidence, it would seem, would be two graphs rolled out ad-nauseum by the high priest of the Church of the Skid Lid.  Quirte a belief system you have.

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

It doesn't - the balance of evidence is quite confused - however the balance of anecdata in this regard is overpowering. As is the level of confirmation bias.

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.

No, I see two trends that a remarkably similar - both trend downwards. I do some differences in specific graphs. Perhaps you need to look up what the word "trend" means in a dictionary, specifically in statistical terms?

I would also direct you to read section 2 "Distinguishing trends from effects of helmet wearing" from the NZ helmet study

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/AAP2001DLRNZHI.pdf   

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

You're the one with the hypothesis trying to draw a causative link for a correlation. It has been shown to be not a very strong one, and that other plausible correlations exist.  It is not for others to prove that one (or a combination) of these alternatives is a better fit, but for you to show that these other factors can be ruled out.

Disclosure : I own a cycling helmet. I only wear it on the trails. Personal anecdata suggests I'm most likely to come a cropper when on my MTB (I also wear knee and elbow guards at the same time). I've come off several times and pretty certain my knee guards saved my life.

 

Yawn.

There have been multiple studies published in the last few years looking at the effects of lights and brightly coloured/reflective clothing on collision rates, almost all associated such measures with a decreased rate of collisions.

What you're suggesting is that anybody presenting a hypothesis should simultaneously present every single other possible hypothetical explanation?

Go and actually look at the graphs. Look at the pedestrian trend. When does it start to decrease? When does the cycling trend start to decrease? Hint: they decrease at different times.

Doesn't that imply that different factors are at work for each group?

Rich_cb wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

I base my beliefs on the best available evidence.

The "best" evidence, it would seem, would be two graphs rolled out ad-nauseum by the high priest of the Church of the Skid Lid.  Quirte a belief system you have.

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

It doesn't - the balance of evidence is quite confused - however the balance of anecdata in this regard is overpowering. As is the level of confirmation bias.

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.

No, I see two trends that a remarkably similar - both trend downwards. I do some differences in specific graphs. Perhaps you need to look up what the word "trend" means in a dictionary, specifically in statistical terms?

I would also direct you to read section 2 "Distinguishing trends from effects of helmet wearing" from the NZ helmet study

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/AAP2001DLRNZHI.pdf   

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

You're the one with the hypothesis trying to draw a causative link for a correlation. It has been shown to be not a very strong one, and that other plausible correlations exist.  It is not for others to prove that one (or a combination) of these alternatives is a better fit, but for you to show that these other factors can be ruled out.

Disclosure : I own a cycling helmet. I only wear it on the trails. Personal anecdata suggests I'm most likely to come a cropper when on my MTB (I also wear knee and elbow guards at the same time). I've come off several times and pretty certain my knee guards saved my life.

 

Yawn. There have been multiple studies published in the last few years looking at the effects of lights and brightly coloured/reflective clothing on collision rates, almost all associated such measures with a decreased rate of collisions. What you're suggesting is that anybody presenting a hypothesis should simultaneously present every single other possible hypothetical explanation? Go and actually look at the graphs. Look at the pedestrian trend. When does it start to decrease? When does the cycling trend start to decrease? Hint: they decrease at different times. Doesn't that imply that different factors are at work for each group?

Eyeballing a single graph isn't a statistical analysis.  It would be very surprising if the two lines were identical.  That different factors (or probably the same factors manifested in different ways) are at work for each mode in no way supports the idea that helmets are the causal factor for cyclists.

But if you could link to those multiple studies that would help.  But I suspect they will turn out to be flawed in only looking at one aspect of the issue (and, in particular, ignoring all the downsides of making such things compulsory).

I bet you could make a study showing that wearing helmets in the shower reduces the rates of shower-slipping-related head injuries, but that would in no way tell us what the total effect of a compulsory shower-helmet law would be.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Eyeballing a single graph isn't a statistical analysis.  It would be very surprising if the two lines were identical.  That different factors (or probably the same factors manifested in different ways) are at work for each mode in no way supports the idea that helmets are the causal factor for cyclists.

 

But if you could link to those multiple studies that would help.  But I suspect they will turn out to be flawed in only looking at one aspect of the issue (and, in particular, ignoring all the downsides of making such things compulsory).

 

I bet you could make a study showing that wearing helmets in the shower reduces the rates of shower-slipping-related head injuries, but that would in no way tell us what the total effect of a compulsory shower-helmet law would be.

You don't need complex statistical analysis to see that the pedestrian rate has declined markedly before there is any change in the cyclist rate.

That implies a specific factor at work.

I've never said that the correlation with increased helmet use proves causality just that it is supportive evidence.

I've also never argued for compulsory helmets or hi Vis.

Anyway here are three recent studies looking into lights or hi Vis.

Hi Vis RCT:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528

Lights RCT:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457512002606

Hi Vis Observational study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457515301184

Rich_cb wrote:

Yawn.

Makes you look a c**t. Just saying.

alansmurphy wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Yawn.

Makes you look a c**t. Just saying.

A problem you're no doubt very familiar with.

alansmurphy wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Yawn.

Makes you look a c**t. Just saying.

That's your stock response that you bring to every debate isn't it? Yeah, thanks for that.

drosco wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Yawn.

Makes you look a c**t. Just saying.

That's your stock response that you bring to every debate isn't it? Yeah, thanks for that.

Not really, very rarely sworn at people in around 1100 comments.

The arrogance of 'Yawn' as a response perhaps invoked a bit of an OTT reaction but people seem so lacking in the ability to take on someone else's view.

I am actually on the helmet side so Rich would be more aligned with my views than BTBS (for example), the 'argument' though is wrong.

alansmurphy wrote:

drosco wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Yawn.

Makes you look a c**t. Just saying.

That's your stock response that you bring to every debate isn't it? Yeah, thanks for that.

Not really, very rarely sworn at people in around 1100 comments.

The arrogance of 'Yawn' as a response perhaps invoked a bit of an OTT reaction but people seem so lacking in the ability to take on someone else's view.

I am actually on the helmet side so Rich would be more aligned with my views than BTBS (for example), the 'argument' though is wrong.

I actually wear a helmet fairly regularly too.

And yes, Rich_cb could well be right that helmets caused a decrease in deaths sometime around the 90s. But it'd be in a stopped-clock-waving-an-irrelevant-graph kind of right, just as it spotted the correct time on the microwave.

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

Someone call?

Nothing personal, Helmut, but can you bugger off?

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

Someone call?

Yeah, we just wanted to know if when you were a child you were called Master Bate?

KendalRed wrote:

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

Someone call?

Yeah, we just wanted to know if when you were a child you were called Master Bate?

 

Oh in certain delicate scenarios I still am...

... by your Mum.

SteveAustin wrote:

Amazing how many people, on this site, who ride bikes are so anti helmet.

Nobody is anti-helmet in the sense that they object to anybody wearing a helmet. Some people are anti-helmet compulsion. There's a big difference.

SteveAustin wrote:

Amazing how many people, on this site, who ride bikes are so anti helmet. Considering a helmet could be the difference between consuming food through a tube for the rest of my life, i find it hard to be as against them as others.

I’m actually pretty amazed at the amount of people on this forum whose balance is so bad that they require a helmet. 

giff77 wrote:

SteveAustin wrote:

Amazing how many people, on this site, who ride bikes are so anti helmet. Considering a helmet could be the difference between consuming food through a tube for the rest of my life, i find it hard to be as against them as others.

I’m actually pretty amazed at the amount of people on this forum whose balance is so bad that they require a helmet. 

You mean you have stopped trying to do tricks on your bike? Gosh you are an old git :p