[b]PLEASE CAN WE JUST LET THIS THREAD DIE NOW![/b]
I started it, surely that gives me the right to close it?
My original question has been pretty much answered, whether or not I agree with the reasons, I am happy that what I asked has been covered... So can we stop the arguing please (or at least take it elsewhere!)
THANK YOU! 😀
TJ - in what way do you find a helmet restrictive?
ps quick aside TJ arent your views on the whys & why nots of helmet wearing self-selective as well? You give your reasons for not wearing in the same way others give theirs for..Not a dig but you cant accuse the other side of something your guilty of.
BTW its entirely upto you what you do & dont do but sometimes you dont make a lot of sense & are not always (IMO) totally honest..
Mr agree able - yes they totally discounted the well documented effects of risk compensation
A self selecting sample is one that is not random - by using hosptial admissions in the way that they have done they have only got a part of the data set they need. they have only used the data from cyclists who required hospital admission. I have done honours degree courses in iterpretation of research and understand to some extent the methodology
With only a part of the data set then conclusions are not valid. all the people they measured might be inexperienced. Those that don't wear helmets might have much lower rates of crashing.
it really is very flawed - read the feedback pages for more critique of it.
OK mboy - I have tried to walk away from this - I promise I will now
edit - repack - I simply find them unpleasant to wear. I have attempted to be open and honest about this. I find them uncomfortable and unpleasant so only wear one when risks are high.
I do not want to wear an uncomfortable sweaty helmet for a one in billions chance.
enough!
they totally discounted the well documented effects of risk compensation
If you're asserting that the effects of risk compensation will outweigh the benefits of wearing a lid, that is just complete conjecture. There's no science behind it, just a half-baked theory you've cobbled together. No offence, like. 🙂
Mr agreeable - nope - I am saying that it is a factor that they have not taken into account. when there are a series of factors that are not accounted for then it casts real doubt on the validity.
strooth is this still going?
data:
I do not want to wear an uncomfortable sweaty helmet for a one in billions chance.
analysis: TJ still has hair
strooth is this still going?
I thought that too - and [b]L-O-N-G[/b], closely reasoned posts at that!
But risk compensation isn't necessarily a result of wearing a helmet. And even if you assert that it is, you've got no evidence to back this up. Take your pseudo-scientific stream of consciouness elsewhere please.
You never know what'll happen. A tiny mistake could render you brain damaged, even if you weren't expecting it or were "just out for a pootle".
It's not worth the risk.
(2 Giro E2s in 3 years here)
SSopponents - better wear yours every time you get out of bed if you're that worried 😕
I bet you don't wear one because you are THE riding god, right?
WOW!! I love these posts! I always wear a lid even if out of the garage around the block to check the gears! Its like puttinfg on a pair of gloves when I ride. My choice my head! if you dont want to then your choice your head (i'll think your a bit daft though!! :wink:). But I'll take my chances with my lid thank you!!
Hold on... risk compensation means you take more risks because you feel better protected...
Well, surely mountain biking is a perfect example of this. I know I have been out riding my bike sans helmet and come across something I won't ride without a helmet... and since gone back and ridden it with helmet on.
And I know I ride a damn sight faster and more techy stuff when lidded up. I actually reckon I am probably far more likely to do myself a nasty when I'm riding with a helmet on than when I am not.
Is that not risk compensation in action?
😀
Mr agree able - the point is that it [b]may[/b] have an effect on this - thus should not be discounted. There is evidence about risk compensation but nothing solid. to discount risk compensation as they have done is poor science - exactly as apportioning all their results to risk compensation would be, it is a variable that has the potential to distort their results but they discounted without any evidence to allow them to do so thus reducing the validity of their results.
No need to be offensive BTW - Its not a pseudo-scientific stream of consciouness from me - its a reasoned position from my reading of the evidence. All backed by logical and evidence.
Seriously if you are relying on something as flawed as that cochrane review then your case is week - I have seen poorer research but not often
OK OK - I know I said I will shut up - I will now
Edit - funky nick - that is exactly risk compensation in action
Recently I have hit my head on the following things:-
loft ladder
bed frame
car boot
cooker extractor hood
Amazingly I also managed to ride my bike several times and not hit my head on anything.
Actually, maybe I should just wear a helmet all the time instead!
I think it's worth remembering that risk is subjective. No matter how much people would like you can't place an objective risk on anything where humans are in the loop, as the person's perception of risk will by default change the level of risk, which makes it nigh on impossible to come to any conclusion as to the risks of wearing or not wearing a helmet.
Secondly it's worth remembering that risk is culturally created (see http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/1712.html for further reading) and cultural theorists broadly catogorise people into 4 groups Individualists, Hierachists, Egalitarians and Fatalists.
Indivualists are enterprising 'self made' people, relatively free from control by others, and who strive to exert control over their enivorment and people in it. Their success is often measured by their wealth and the number of followers ther can command. The self-made victorian mill owner would make a good example of this.
Hierachists inhabit a world with strong group boundaries and binding presciptions. Social relationships in this world are hierichial, with everyone knowing his or her place. Members od caste-bound socities, soldiers and civil servants are exemplars of this category.
Egalitarians have strong group loyalities but little respect for externally imposed rules, other than those imposed by nature. Group decisions are arrived at democratically and leaders rule by force of personallity and persuasion. Members of religious sects, communards, and enviromental pressure groups belong in this category.
Fatalists have minimal control over their own lives. They belong to no groups responsible for the decisions that rule their lives. They are non-unionized employees, outcasts, untouchables. They are resigned to their fate and they see no point in attempting to change it.*
These groups form different views on the risk of a particualar task.
For Individualists the use of seat belts, helmets, sexual behaviour should be matters for individual discretion and not something of the 'nanny state'
Egalatarians, like indivualists oppose compulsion for seat belt and helmets, but tend to do so for other reasons, they argue that compelling people to wear helmets inhibits the use of an enviromentally benign form of transport and that seat belts and other measures to protect cars put cyclists and pedestrians at greater risk.
Hierachists believe that everything will be ok if things are properly managed and regulation for the collective good. If cyclists and motorists do not have the good sense to wear helmets and seatbelts then they should be compelled to do so.
Fatalists have no view of the subject because views are pointless as they won't change anything.
Anyway, back to the matter in hand - helmets. This thread, like all others on the subject is an argument between cultural viewpoints rather than an objective discusission of risk, in this case the Individualists and Egalatarians vs. the Hierachists (and some of the awkward Egalatarians).
No useful conclusions will ever come from it and it will always be as constructive as debating 'labour or conservative, which is the best?' 🙂
* preciced from John Adams 'Risk'
ps. Apologies for the numerous typos 🙂
Just adding a post because of the modulo 40 bug 🙂
a tip: if you want to be read, keep it short please!
If it's just stream-of-consciousness then feel free to expand at length...
That was the short version!
I feel I need to post this as this is getting silly...
[img] http://blogs.technet.com/photos/gray_knowlton/images/2998979/original.aspx [/img]
Put down the keyboard, step away from the computer, and go make yourself a cup of tea and watch the telly...
PLEASE!!! 😕
Yikes!
Wear one or don't the choice is yours, that's the beauty of living in a democracy - just wear one on my patch of trail please 🙂
May I post just once more?
I'd happily ride anywhere off-road without a helmet in preference to riding a bicycle in traffic. Now that is an unacceptable risk.
that is spot on!
That was the short version!
eeek!
So who rides without gloves on then?
May I post just once more?
Seems you did already 😉
I was aiming the comments at everyone TJ, not specifically you... I'm just laughing at how silly this has got now, from me asking a question as to why people don't feel the need to wear a helmet, to become a full scale slanging match by several vocal members of this forum!
You should all be politicians!!!
So who rides without gloves on then?
Not me, EVER!
I've hit my head a few times coming off, but I'd say 8 times out of 10 my hands take the brunt of any fall, and wearing gloves has kept a lot more skin on my hands than would have been there minus them! I still wear full finger gloves to ride XC in, even in the height of summer!
Full finger gloves always
Mboy, you started it, Its no good trying to back out now, I hope you've learned your lesson 😀
Mboy - love that cartoon can't stop s****ing