New Forest cyclist unscathed after crashing into tractor bucket on descent

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

So you respond with a point that doesn't actually address the claim you are replying to, then accuse the other of 'lying'.  You are a slippery  debater.

 

That you can find one correlation of the two stats doesn't disprove the claim that that the previous poster made.

 

  (Granted, they don't provide any evidence for their claim either, so the whole question remains open, but your response isn't counter-evidence, becuase to say 'A falls with increasing B' implicitly claims universality and causality so finding one case where A happened to fall with increasing B doesn't disprove the denial of that claim)

Burt claimed there wasn't a correlation. There is a correlation. Burt is wrong. He knows he's wrong yet he keeps trying to mislead people. Burt is a liar.

You aren't thinking clearly.  He didn't claim 'there wasn't a correlation', at least not in the post you were replying to.  He was clearly denying causation , or at the very least denying the existence of a universal and necessary correlation.    He did not say 'in not one single case ever has cycle-helmet wearing risen as road deaths have fallen'.  He didn't say 'the figures don't correlate in the UK for this particular period'.    He was clearly claiming the evidence shows there's no necessary and predictable correlation, and that there was no thefore causal relationship.  That's a different claim.  Albeit an unevidenced one.

I don't see you have any basis for calling him a 'liar'.

(I'm not at all convinced the evidence proves this negative conclusion either, admittedly...so, er, he might not be able to back up that claim after all)

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You aren't thinking clearly.  He didn't claim 'there wasn't a correlation', at least not in the post you were replying to.  He was clearly denying causation , or at the very least denying the existence of a universal and necessary correlation.    He did not say 'in not one single case ever has cycle-helmet wearing risen as road deaths have fallen'.  He didn't say 'the figures don't correlate in the UK for this particular period'.    He was clearly claiming the evidence shows there's no necessary and predictable correlation, and that there was no thefore causal relationship.  That's a different claim.  Albeit an unevidenced one.

 

 

I don't see you have any basis for calling him a 'liar'.

 

(I'm not at all convinced the evidence proves this negative conclusion either, admittedly...so, er, he might not be able to back up that claim after all)

You're interpreting his post in a different way to me. I disagree with your interpretation but can't see much point discussing it beyond that.

Burt has form for denying any correlation exists repeatedly so I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume he isn't do exactly that this time.

He lies about this topic repeatedly.

Hence why I call him a liar.

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You're interpreting his post in a different way to me. I disagree with your interpretation but can't see much point discussing it beyond that. Burt has form for denying any correlation exists repeatedly so I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume he isn't do exactly that this time. He lies about this topic repeatedly. Hence why I call him a liar.

OK, enough.  I generally refuse to indulge in debate with idiots, for the obvious reason that they will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience, but I'm tired of being called a liar.

Either apologise or I will request that you are banned.

burtthebike wrote:

OK, enough.  I generally refuse to indulge in debate with idiots, for the obvious reason that they will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience, but I'm tired of being called a liar.

Either apologise or I will request that you are banned.

Effect of Italy’s motorcycle helmet law on traumatic brain injuries

Https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/257

"data from the survey showed that the number of two wheeled motorized vehicles, in use throughout the country, did not decrease after the introduction of the new law."

Stop lying and I'll stop calling you a liar.

Off you run to teacher.

burtthebike wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

Are some of you willing to say a helmet can NEVER be a contributing factor in whether someone lived or suffered lesser injury? Why do I have to wear one as a motorcyclist?

Of course a helmet could prevent death or injury, but the evidence shows that the death rate of cyclists doesn't fall with increased helmet wearing, so either helmets don't actually prevent death, or they prevent some but cause other deaths, so the risk remains the same.  What would be the point of wearing something which doesn't actually reduce risk?

You have to wear a motorcycle helmet because the politicians/police/health professionals lied about them, in exactly the same way they are lying about cycle helmets.  The evidence that motorcycle helmets have been effective is similar to cycle helmets; almost entirely absent apart from some dodgy research by biased scientists.

Actually there is quite a bit of evidence showing that motorcycle helmets save lives. When Michigan dropped its rulling on motorcyclists needing helmets just a few years back, the death rate amongst motorcyclists soared.

There are a lot of differences between motorcyclists and the motorcycle helmets they use and cyclists and the cycle helmets they use. To put the two key differences briefly; motorcycles typically travel a lot faster than bicycle and motorcycle helmets are vastly more protective than cycle helmets.

There is no study showing the safety benefits of cycle helmets that has not been criticised for the methodology/results. 

OldRidgeback wrote:

Actually there is quite a bit of evidence showing that motorcycle helmets save lives. When Michigan dropped its rulling on motorcyclists needing helmets just a few years back, the death rate amongst motorcyclists soared.

There are a lot of differences between motorcyclists and the motorcycle helmets they use and cyclists and the cycle helmets they use. To put the two key differences briefly; motorcycles typically travel a lot faster than bicycle and motorcycle helmets are vastly more protective than cycle helmets.

There is no study showing the safety benefits of cycle helmets that has not been criticised for the methodology/results. 

[/quote]

There is some evidence that motorcycle helmets save lives, but just like the cycle helmet research showing massive benefits, the methodology is dodgy to say the least.  The main "evidence" is hospital studies showing that the ratio of motorcyclists killed not wearing a helmet went up after the helmet law was withdrawn.  To call this dodgy research would be a compliment of the highest order.

There is at least as much, and more reliable, evidence showing the opposite, just like cycle helmets, the UK for instance.  When the motorcycle helmet law was introduced, there was an immediate fall in the number of motorcyclist deaths, so the law was declared a success, except that one researcher dug a little deeper and found that the reduction in deaths occurred mainly between the hours of 2200-0200.  Unless the helmets became magically effective between those hours, the reduction was due to something else, so what else happened at the same time?  Well the same act that brought in the helmet law also brought in the drink driving laws and the breathalyser, which is clearly a much more likely candidate for the reduction.

In Italy, one county decided to implement a motorcycle helmet law, and the death rate fell by about 40%, again, declared a success.  But the number of motorcycle registrations fell by about 45%, so the death reduction was actually less than the fall in the number of motorcyclists.

burtthebike wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

Actually there is quite a bit of evidence showing that motorcycle helmets save lives. When Michigan dropped its rulling on motorcyclists needing helmets just a few years back, the death rate amongst motorcyclists soared.

There are a lot of differences between motorcyclists and the motorcycle helmets they use and cyclists and the cycle helmets they use. To put the two key differences briefly; motorcycles typically travel a lot faster than bicycle and motorcycle helmets are vastly more protective than cycle helmets.

There is no study showing the safety benefits of cycle helmets that has not been criticised for the methodology/results. 

There is some evidence that motorcycle helmets save lives, but just like the cycle helmet research showing massive benefits, the methodology is dodgy to say the least.  The main "evidence" is hospital studies showing that the ratio of motorcyclists killed not wearing a helmet went up after the helmet law was withdrawn.  To call this dodgy research would be a compliment of the highest order.

There is at least as much, and more reliable, evidence showing the opposite, just like cycle helmets, the UK for instance.  When the motorcycle helmet law was introduced, there was an immediate fall in the number of motorcyclist deaths, so the law was declared a success, except that one researcher dug a little deeper and found that the reduction in deaths occurred mainly between the hours of 2200-1200.  Unless the helmets became magically effective between those hours, the reduction was due to something else, so what else happened at the same time?  Well the same act that brought in the helmet law also brought in the drink driving laws and the breathalyser, which is clearly a much more likely candidate for the reduction.

In Italy, one county decided to implement a motorcycle helmet law, and the death rate fell by about 40%, again, declared a success.  But the number of motorcycle registrations fell by about 45%, so the death reduction was actually less than the fall in the number of motorcyclists.

Here's a review of studies on motorbike helmets and is probably better than just looking at hospital admissions: https://www.cochrane.org/CD004333/INJ_helmets-are-shown-to-reduce-motorcyclist-head-injury-and-death

Conclusions: Motorcycle helmets reduce the risk of death and head injury in motorcycle riders who crash. Further well-conducted research is required to determine the effects of helmets and different helmet types on mortality, head, neck and facial injuries. However, the findings suggest that global efforts to reduce road traffic injuries may be facilitated by increasing helmet use by motorcyclists.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Here's a review of studies on motorbike helmets and is probably better than just looking at hospital admissions: https://www.cochrane.org/CD004333/INJ_helmets-are-shown-to-reduce-motorcyclist-head-injury-and-death

Conclusions: Motorcycle helmets reduce the risk of death and head injury in motorcycle riders who crash. Further well-conducted research is required to determine the effects of helmets and different helmet types on mortality, head, neck and facial injuries. However, the findings suggest that global efforts to reduce road traffic injuries may be facilitated by increasing helmet use by motorcyclists.

[/quote]

Sorry, but after the utterly disgusting, totally biased Cochrane review of cycle helmets that broke every one of their own criteria for such reviews, I no longer consider Cochrane reviews reliable.  They used to be the gold standard, but now they are as valuable as junk bonds.

burtthebike wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

Actually there is quite a bit of evidence showing that motorcycle helmets save lives. When Michigan dropped its rulling on motorcyclists needing helmets just a few years back, the death rate amongst motorcyclists soared.

There are a lot of differences between motorcyclists and the motorcycle helmets they use and cyclists and the cycle helmets they use. To put the two key differences briefly; motorcycles typically travel a lot faster than bicycle and motorcycle helmets are vastly more protective than cycle helmets.

There is no study showing the safety benefits of cycle helmets that has not been criticised for the methodology/results. 

There is some evidence that motorcycle helmets save lives, but just like the cycle helmet research showing massive benefits, the methodology is dodgy to say the least.  The main "evidence" is hospital studies showing that the ratio of motorcyclists killed not wearing a helmet went up after the helmet law was withdrawn.  To call this dodgy research would be a compliment of the highest order.

There is at least as much, and more reliable, evidence showing the opposite, just like cycle helmets, the UK for instance.  When the motorcycle helmet law was introduced, there was an immediate fall in the number of motorcyclist deaths, so the law was declared a success, except that one researcher dug a little deeper and found that the reduction in deaths occurred mainly between the hours of 2200-0200.  Unless the helmets became magically effective between those hours, the reduction was due to something else, so what else happened at the same time?  Well the same act that brought in the helmet law also brought in the drink driving laws and the breathalyser, which is clearly a much more likely candidate for the reduction.

In Italy, one county decided to implement a motorcycle helmet law, and the death rate fell by about 40%, again, declared a success.  But the number of motorcycle registrations fell by about 45%, so the death reduction was actually less than the fall in the number of motorcyclists.

[/quote]

South East Asia has a horrendous road fatality rate. Poor driving, poor roads, excessive speeds and DUI are all serious issues. The problem is particularly bad in Thailand (with about 11 times the road death rate of the UK for s similar population size). Motorcycles are very popular and understandably, motorcycle users figure highly in the crash statistics. The number of road deaths in every single South East Asian country is increasing, bar one. Since Vietnam introduced compulsory helmet use for motorcyclists a couple of years ago, the country's road fatality rate has dropped. Go figure.

Rick_Rude wrote:

Are some of you willing to say a helmet can NEVER be a contributing factor in whether someone lived or suffered lesser injury? Why do I have to wear one as a motorcyclist?

A motorcycle helmet is very different to ordinary bike helmets. The full-face design is much better for protecting the face and I believe motorcycle helmets don't just use expanded polystyrene for their impact absorption. The outside shell is remarkably different as well - motorcycle helmets often use polycarbonate which is tougher and harder than the thin plastic shell of bike helmets (polycarbonate shells are part of the impact protection which is why you should never drop a motorcycle helmet and then re-use when it looks undamaged). There's quite a bit of foam padding in use in motorcycle helmets and that can absorb a lot of the decceleration forces that would otherwise mush your brain against your skull.

So, if you want decent head protection, wear a full face motorcycle helmet on your bike. They have much more rigorous testing and there's much more evidence about their efficacy.

However, full face helmets also restrict your vision, your hearing and heat dissipation as well as being significantly heavier than bike helmets, which is why it's probably not worth wearing one all the time on a bike as most people don't crash very often, if at all.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

Are some of you willing to say a helmet can NEVER be a contributing factor in whether someone lived or suffered lesser injury? Why do I have to wear one as a motorcyclist?

A motorcycle helmet is very different to ordinary bike helmets. The full-face design is much better for protecting the face and I believe motorcycle helmets don't just use expanded polystyrene for their impact absorption. The outside shell is remarkably different as well - motorcycle helmets often use polycarbonate which is tougher and harder than the thin plastic shell of bike helmets (polycarbonate shells are part of the impact protection which is why you should never drop a motorcycle helmet and then re-use when it looks undamaged). There's quite a bit of foam padding in use in motorcycle helmets and that can absorb a lot of the decceleration forces that would otherwise mush your brain against your skull.

So, if you want decent head protection, wear a full face motorcycle helmet on your bike. They have much more rigorous testing and there's much more evidence about their efficacy.

However, full face helmets also restrict your vision, your hearing and heat dissipation as well as being significantly heavier than bike helmets, which is why it's probably not worth wearing one all the time on a bike as most people don't crash very often, if at all.

Motorcycle helmets are rated to provide protection up to about 16mph, and the evidence about their efficacy is like that of cycle helmets; absent or extremely contentious.

burtthebike wrote:

Motorcycle helmets are rated to provide protection up to about 16mph, and the evidence about their efficacy is like that of cycle helmets; absent or extremely contentious.

Try telling that to the guy I scraped off the M4 one morning - his back tyre blew at something in the region of 70mph (he'd only just joined the motorway as I went past J12) and I watched him catapulted in the air.

Thanks to the helmet, he still had a head and face left when he landed - I'll never forget the state of his visor. Proper leathers saved the rest of him from more serious injury.

My uncle crashed his motorbike into a tree when some drunk eejit stepped out in front of him - I've not seen it, but I'm told it had quite a sizable dent in his crash helmet. He still spent a couple of weeks in hospital.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

Are some of you willing to say a helmet can NEVER be a contributing factor in whether someone lived or suffered lesser injury? Why do I have to wear one as a motorcyclist?

A motorcycle helmet is very different to ordinary bike helmets. The full-face design is much better for protecting the face and I believe motorcycle helmets don't just use expanded polystyrene for their impact absorption. The outside shell is remarkably different as well - motorcycle helmets often use polycarbonate which is tougher and harder than the thin plastic shell of bike helmets (polycarbonate shells are part of the impact protection which is why you should never drop a motorcycle helmet and then re-use when it looks undamaged). There's quite a bit of foam padding in use in motorcycle helmets and that can absorb a lot of the decceleration forces that would otherwise mush your brain against your skull.

So, if you want decent head protection, wear a full face motorcycle helmet on your bike. They have much more rigorous testing and there's much more evidence about their efficacy.

However, full face helmets also restrict your vision, your hearing and heat dissipation as well as being significantly heavier than bike helmets, which is why it's probably not worth wearing one all the time on a bike as most people don't crash very often, if at all.

No sorry, you're actually wrong - motorcycle helmets use exactly the same polystyrene inside as the shock absorbing layer. The outside shell is made of either polycarbonate (cheaper helmets) or fibre reinforced plastic, i.e. fibre glass or Kevlar (on the most expensive), which is intended as a strong anti-puncture and load spreading layer.

Motorcyle helmets are therefore basically exactly the same principle, they're just designed for much bigger/faster impacts. To be at all acceptable to a cyclist, bike helmets also have to be lighter and much better ventillated for blindingly obvious reasons.

AndyRed3d wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

Are some of you willing to say a helmet can NEVER be a contributing factor in whether someone lived or suffered lesser injury? Why do I have to wear one as a motorcyclist?

A motorcycle helmet is very different to ordinary bike helmets. The full-face design is much better for protecting the face and I believe motorcycle helmets don't just use expanded polystyrene for their impact absorption. The outside shell is remarkably different as well - motorcycle helmets often use polycarbonate which is tougher and harder than the thin plastic shell of bike helmets (polycarbonate shells are part of the impact protection which is why you should never drop a motorcycle helmet and then re-use when it looks undamaged). There's quite a bit of foam padding in use in motorcycle helmets and that can absorb a lot of the decceleration forces that would otherwise mush your brain against your skull.

So, if you want decent head protection, wear a full face motorcycle helmet on your bike. They have much more rigorous testing and there's much more evidence about their efficacy.

However, full face helmets also restrict your vision, your hearing and heat dissipation as well as being significantly heavier than bike helmets, which is why it's probably not worth wearing one all the time on a bike as most people don't crash very often, if at all.

No sorry, you're actually wrong - motorcycle helmets use exactly the same polystyrene inside as the shock absorbing layer. The outside shell is made of either polycarbonate (cheaper helmets) or fibre reinforced plastic, i.e. fibre glass or Kevlar (on the most expensive), which is intended as a strong anti-puncture and load spreading layer.

Motorcyle helmets are therefore basically exactly the same principle, they're just designed for much bigger/faster impacts. To be at all acceptable to a cyclist, bike helmets also have to be lighter and much better ventillated for blindingly obvious reasons.

I see. To be honest, I was just thinking about the foam inserts and didn't realise that there was EPS on the inside of the shell. I feel like I've learnt something today, but I've still got a hankering for some graphs comparing different helmet types.

Rick_Rude wrote:

Are some of you willing to say a helmet can NEVER be a contributing factor in whether someone lived or suffered lesser injury? Why do I have to wear one as a motorcyclist?

I don't see the point of getting into an argument about motorbike helmets.  They are completely different things in a completely different context (for one thing I personally woudn't mind at all if they deterred people from motorcycling - it would reduce the noise level round here noticably...if they could just ban police helicopters as well that would help my sleep).

  But I don't think helmets can never be a factor, and if someone's reason for wearing one is "I reckon it might help in some way in some situation, and I'm risk-averse, so thought I might as well, when I remember to use it and can face carting the thing around when off the bike" that would be better than piously going on about '"taking responsibility for my own safety".

And an obvious response is to your question is why does it only apply to cycling rather than all the time?  It could be a contributing factor to surviving a fall in the shower or falling down the stairs, or as a driver in a car crash, but so what?

(I'm quite sure if helmets were compulsory for showering or driving we'd get a few 'helmet saved my life' anecdotes about those cases as well)

A440 wrote:

The helmet did not save his life. It was a tacit rejection of facts. Oh, and infrastructure, isn't that what you non-helmet wearing fuckups always say? "Helmets don't save lives. INFRASTRUCRUE saves lives!"

Are you feeling ok?

A440 wrote:

"Helmets don't save lives. INFRASTRUCRUE saves lives!"

I can't think why we haven't considered infrastrucrue before, in lower case or shouted in capitals by someone who doesn't understand anything about safety and can't spell.

brooksby wrote:

Dipping my toe into this argument: it seems that mr goddard was very very lucky to escape from this collision relatively unscathed. Whether or not his polystyrene safety hat saved his life or even contributed toward his good luck to any degree is, in my opinion, unproven.

No, it's proven.  The police said so. 

And the earth is flat, in my opinion and that of helmet zealots.  Proof is so last century.

Rick_Rude wrote:

Funny how certain people turn to victim blaming if the cyclist dares to say a piece of safety equipment did it's job. 

No doubt if some form of abrasion resistant lycra was invented the same people would be telling everyone how they've ridden for 50 years and never lost any skin if some guy said it was lucky they were wearing it.  

I remember my mate crashing his motorbike and somehow his helmet appeared to be unscathed. Obviously he did not need to bother!

Clearly you don't understand what 'victim-blaming' means.  Or you do, but you choose to forget because you want to hit back at those who aren't true-believers regarding helmets.

To be clear - who are you saying this particular cyclist is a victim of?  From whom is the 'blame' being transferred?

Nepomucene wrote:

Hmm, all comments on helmet vs no helmet but nobody cares about a tractor with the bucket down on an open road?

pretty sure this should not happen!

But, y'know: "farmers".

I remember years ago driving across the Cambrian Mountains in mid Wales, coming round a bend to find a tractor happily towing a trailer significantly slower than the speed limit (obviously!) but with no lights and no reflectors. At about 8 pm in November. Very very dangerous.