Cycling to the gym is a "stroke of genius"

Tom Crispin

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:57:15 +0100, Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:08:04 GMT, _
>> <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "First-hand accounts" and "stories" are not data - they are anecdote. Data
>>> is what we find in statistical studies; they show the opposite of what your
>>> religion says.
>>
>> When I cited (sort of) Brian Walker's study for the CTC I was told
>> "theory <> reality".
>
>They're indeed not the same. Reality is what you see across the whole
>population. What you see is the number of serious injuries are not
>reduced by wearing helmets. If the theory was reality, you would see a
>different effect.
>
>> When I give a real life example I am told
>> "first-hand accounts" are not data.
>
>They are a /very/ small part of the data. The whole population
>statistics are the sum total of *all* of the anecdotes, all ways.
>Rather than listen to one, you need to listen to them *all*, and the
>whole population data allows you to do something like that. And it
>tells you that there is no benefit against serious head injuries from
>wearing a cycle helmet. I wish it were otherwise, then I could easily
>make myself genuinely safer wearing something I proved able to wear
>every trip for over a decade. But that's not what relaity turns out to
>be like.

I have never seen any whole population data that convinces me that
wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing one.

Can you provide a pointer?

John Kane

On Jun 15, 10:22*am, Tom Crispin
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:49:43 GMT, _

> *I have never heard a first hand account of a time when a
> helmet has increased the severity of an injury. *I am therefore
> convinced that helmets do more to protect against injury than cause
> further harm.


The problem,here ,s that the basic assumption is that the helmet
"helps". Therefore if is extremely unlikely that one would claim that
the helmet aggrevated the injury. At most the statemement might be
that the helmet didn't protect adequately.

It's a little like bleeding in the 18th C. "The doctor came and bled
daddy 3 times and he still died"[1] veryone "knew" that bleeding was
good for you.

Actually I think that helmets may do some good at reducing cuts and
scrapes but since wearing my helmet nearly killed me a couple of times
I'll rise the road rash in order to avoid the high speed crashes.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

[1] Was not this part of the treatment that did in Charles II?

John Kane

On Jun 16, 4:06*am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
> > I take a neutral
> > position when I carry out private cyclist instruction.
>
> Almost, but not quite. *I'm quite sure you intend to. *But the reasons
> you've cited as good reasons for kids to wear helmets in convoy aren't,
> IMHO, quite as good as you think. *There is nothing in the reasoning
> that should change by crossing the North Sea, but if you do that then
> the EU nation with the best record of cycling rates and of cyclist head
> injury rates doesn't bother with it, which suggests it's not quite as
> straightforward as you made out.
>
> > I have heard enough stories from those who claim a helmet has been of
> > benefit to be convinced that helmets can protect against certain types
> > of injury. *I have never heard a first hand account of a time when a
> > helmet has increased the severity of an injury. *I am therefore
> > convinced that helmets do more to protect against injury than cause
> > further harm.
>
> Again, the logic is just a bit too good to be true.
>
> People who have bought and trusted a safety device are very unlikely to
> believe it made anything worse: the automatic assumption is it must have
> made things better, because that's what they bought it for. *Stock
> reaction after a helmeted accident, even if you don't hit your head,
> "lucky you were wearing a helmet!"
> In practice you don't know whether it was better or worse, because
> there's no access to a control. *However, the assumption is it makes
> things better.

One might even suggest superstitious learning?
I fell, I was wearing a helmet, ergo the helmet saved my life?

Have you heard the one about the psychiarist (sp) the patient and the
tobacco?

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

Danny Colyer

On 16/06/2008 11:25, Peter Clinch wrote:
> There's more to it than fitting. With a hlemet you have a bigger,
> heavier head which is more likely to hit something, because it is bigger
> and harder to hold away from things that might impact the head. It is
> also the case that helmets may modify behaviour that leads to accidents
> in the first place.

After 15 years following the debate, I'm well aware of all of this.

<much snippage>

> See if he's put off it in the long term and you might have something,
> over the course of a day doesn't really prove much.

The child only has to put off cycling for an hour for a cycling trip to
the park to have been ruined and for an opportunity to develop skill and
confidence to have been lost.

I suspect that if Charlie was put off by an injury on one trip to the
park, he'd probably be reluctant to ride on the next trip, but after
watching his sister enjoying herself on her bike he'd be easily
persuaded on the trip after that. If we can avoid all of that, though,
and not have him put off in the first place, then IMHO that's a good thing.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

Adam Lea

"John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:866bd8d3-1eb9-45dc-844d-256c25018f94@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> but since wearing my helmet nearly killed me a couple of times
>

Isn't this statement just as speculative as the statement "a helmet saved my
life"?

If you know for a fact that the helmet nearly killed you, I would be
interested to know how?

Peter Clinch

Tom Crispin wrote:

> I have never seen any whole population data that convinces me that
> wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing one.
>
> Can you provide a pointer?

No. But you do illustrate one of the problems of this issue very
neatly... one post ago you said "I am therefore convinced that helmets
do more to protect against injury than cause further harm", but you
missed the fact that that isn't the only other possibility.

The possibility the whole population data throws up is they do pretty
much /nothing/, plus or minus an error, but dismissing one side of that
seeming actuality is not really enough to show the other side should be
given the benefit of the doubt, but that's what you've done.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch

Danny Colyer wrote:

> The child only has to put off cycling for an hour for a cycling trip to
> the park to have been ruined and for an opportunity to develop skill and
> confidence to have been lost.
>
> I suspect that if Charlie was put off by an injury on one trip to the
> park, he'd probably be reluctant to ride on the next trip, but after
> watching his sister enjoying herself on her bike he'd be easily
> persuaded on the trip after that. If we can avoid all of that, though,
> and not have him put off in the first place, then IMHO that's a good thing.

But there's plenty more hours and plenty more trips.

And if we're being hypothetical what if he wants to go home early one
hot summer day because his lid is 'orrible to wear, and he feels he
needs it in case he falls off? You've just moved the problem around...

The "if we can avoid all of that" will apply to plenty of games and
activities not involving a bike where you can bang your head (I don't
really mean learning to walk, which is probably a much more fundamental
drive, but all sorts of rough and tumble games). But again a special
exception is being made for bikes, apparently for little obvious reason
beyond someone is marketing something for bikes but not for other stuff.

I just want to reinforce the point that I'm not saying they shouldn't be
worn, just I've yet to see a reason that doesn't apply just as well to
other stuff not involving bikes where folk don't care about them.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Mark McNeill

Response to Peter Clinch
> No. But you do illustrate one of the problems of this issue very
> neatly... one post ago you said "I am therefore convinced that helmets
> do more to protect against injury than cause further harm", but you
> missed the fact that that isn't the only other possibility.
>
> The possibility the whole population data throws up is they do pretty
> much /nothing/, plus or minus an error, but dismissing one side of that
> seeming actuality is not really enough to show the other side should be
> given the benefit of the doubt, but that's what you've done.


That's just bias confirmation, just as we see with homeopathy, psychics,
etc; *many* more people are likely to see a benefit in something they've
invested money and belief in. It's tempting to state that pretty much
*anything* which has no material effect but which people want to believe
in will gather plenty of testimonials such as Tom has described.



--
Mark, UK
"No, no, Cuthbert! Not the hose!"

_

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:57:32 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:

> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> I have never seen any whole population data that convinces me that
>> wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing one.
>>
>> Can you provide a pointer?
>
> No. But you do illustrate one of the problems of this issue very
> neatly... one post ago you said "I am therefore convinced that helmets
> do more to protect against injury than cause further harm", but you
> missed the fact that that isn't the only other possibility.
>
> The possibility the whole population data throws up is they do pretty
> much /nothing/, plus or minus an error, but dismissing one side of that
> seeming actuality is not really enough to show the other side should be
> given the benefit of the doubt, but that's what you've done.
>

It's a typical pro-helmet elision - from "is no benefit" to "are more
dangerous"; when you find yourself challenged on the point that matters,
pretend you are arguing about something else.

_

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:23:35 +0100, Mark McNeill wrote:

> Response to Peter Clinch
>> No. But you do illustrate one of the problems of this issue very
>> neatly... one post ago you said "I am therefore convinced that helmets
>> do more to protect against injury than cause further harm", but you
>> missed the fact that that isn't the only other possibility.
>>
>> The possibility the whole population data throws up is they do pretty
>> much /nothing/, plus or minus an error, but dismissing one side of that
>> seeming actuality is not really enough to show the other side should be
>> given the benefit of the doubt, but that's what you've done.
>
>
> That's just bias confirmation, just as we see with homeopathy, psychics,
> etc; *many* more people are likely to see a benefit in something they've
> invested money and belief in. It's tempting to state that pretty much
> *anything* which has no material effect but which people want to believe
> in will gather plenty of testimonials such as Tom has described.

Indeed - and such scams tend to take in those who cannot think things
through - for example we have Crspin saying that he thinks that helmet laws
would both reduce cycling and improve the general health of the nation.

Mark McNeill

Response to _
> Indeed - and such scams tend to take in those who cannot think things
> through - for example we have Crspin saying that he thinks that helmet laws
> would both reduce cycling and improve the general health of the nation.

I'm sure that was a typo.


--
Mark, UK
"Between believing a thing and thinking you know is only a small step
and quickly taken."

Peter Clinch

_ wrote:

> Indeed - and such scams tend to take in those who cannot think things
> through - for example we have Crspin saying that he thinks that helmet laws
> would both reduce cycling and improve the general health of the nation.

That's not really a fair representation.

While I agree there are logical anomalies in his posts on the matter,
you're not really helping anyone by putting implied words in his mouth
that didn't come from them. It just pisses people off and is ultimately
counter productive.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

_

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:54:01 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:

> _ wrote:
>
>> Indeed - and such scams tend to take in those who cannot think things
>> through - for example we have Crspin saying that he thinks that helmet laws
>> would both reduce cycling and improve the general health of the nation.
>
> That's not really a fair representation.
>
> While I agree there are logical anomalies in his posts on the matter,
> you're not really helping anyone by putting implied words in his mouth
> that didn't come from them.

But they did:

"> I am equally convinced that mandotary helmet use, in the population as
> a whole, would lead to a reduction in cycle use and an increase in the
> health of the nation."

Peter Clinch

_ wrote:

> But they did:
>
> "> I am equally convinced that mandotary helmet use, in the population as
>> a whole, would lead to a reduction in cycle use and an increase in the
>> health of the nation."

As suggested already, typo, and I think typo on the grounds it conflicts
with a lot of what Tom has said quite unequivocally elsewhere, and more
obviously with what he personally actually does.

If you doubt that I'd be inclined to at least check it before raking him
over the coals about it.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/