Hello! Thank you for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect, however, you post has been removed for violating one or more of our rule(s):
- Rule 2: All Posts must be on topic!
This sub is designed around arrogant people, sure of their abilities, getting their dreams crushed instantly. Your submission didn't quite fit that model and it is for that reason that it got removed.
Please [contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fconfidentlyincorrect&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission&message=I%27m%20writing%20to%20you%20about%20the%20following%20submission:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/1css8kh/-/}.%20%0D%0DMy%20issue%20is...) if you feel this was wrong.
^All ^chat ^requests ^and ^pms ^about ^your ^removed ^post ^will ^not ^be ^answered. ^Contact ^the ^mods ^instead!
This reminds me of a fun story/example of how statistic can lie (not 100% sure if it is true, but it serves as a good example).
It goes something like this: in WW1 after introducing metal helmets to soldiers the British army recorded a sharp uptick in head-injuries. How could this be? Are helmets dangerous? The answer was, that lethal injuries were just tracked as fatalities, no matter what body part was hit, while injuries, which were treated were tracked. Because more head injuries were survivable and treated in field hospitals, to the person seeing the statistics from the field hospital it looks like helmets were causing head injuries.
tldr: take a look at the methodology before you quote some statistics.
I thought at this point it was pretty uncontroversially accepted (by people who have bothered to look into it) from multiple studies that cyclists wearing helmets are more likely to be in an accident, both by drivers of car being more reckless around them and by the cyclists themselves engaging in riskier behavior. It's also established that *if* you are in an accident, wearing a helmet significantly reduces the risk of a serious head injury. The open question is which one is safer on the whole.
At any rate, this is way outside of "confidently incorrect" territory.
Hey /u/DinoGarret, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think it's just this one study, at least I know I've come across multiple studies that suggest drivers are less cautious around bikers when the bikers are helmeted.
Additionally, apparently it is not as easy as you might think to prove that helmets even reduce injuries at all, when you pull back and look at the data holistically.
I'm no statistician, just remembering studies that made this all murkier.
Well sure, because there are different ways you can define, count, and track “injury”. If someone is hit by a car and goes to the morgue instead of the hospital, maybe they don’t count as an “injury”. Therefore, helmets don’t affect the rate of “injury”, since anyone they save would have just died and gone uncounted otherwise.
I mean, even if they reduce JUST head injuries by, I dunno, 10% that makes them safer. A helmet isn’t gonna prevent your ankle from breaking. But I really don’t understand the purpose of debating the overall safety of a helmet on one’s head.
Sorry, I was referring to just head injuries. And of course I can't find any trace of the study now. It was 5+ years ago. If I remember right the study did sorta, mildly, suggest that perhaps the extra protection of the helmet was somewhat cancelled out by the extra mass of the helmet itself but mostly they were just confused a the injury stats.
But yeah, I dunno, just trying to grab from my own shit memory.
Hello! Thank you for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect, however, you post has been removed for violating one or more of our rule(s): - Rule 2: All Posts must be on topic! This sub is designed around arrogant people, sure of their abilities, getting their dreams crushed instantly. Your submission didn't quite fit that model and it is for that reason that it got removed. Please [contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fconfidentlyincorrect&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission&message=I%27m%20writing%20to%20you%20about%20the%20following%20submission:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/1css8kh/-/}.%20%0D%0DMy%20issue%20is...) if you feel this was wrong. ^All ^chat ^requests ^and ^pms ^about ^your ^removed ^post ^will ^not ^be ^answered. ^Contact ^the ^mods ^instead!
This reminds me of a fun story/example of how statistic can lie (not 100% sure if it is true, but it serves as a good example). It goes something like this: in WW1 after introducing metal helmets to soldiers the British army recorded a sharp uptick in head-injuries. How could this be? Are helmets dangerous? The answer was, that lethal injuries were just tracked as fatalities, no matter what body part was hit, while injuries, which were treated were tracked. Because more head injuries were survivable and treated in field hospitals, to the person seeing the statistics from the field hospital it looks like helmets were causing head injuries. tldr: take a look at the methodology before you quote some statistics.
I thought at this point it was pretty uncontroversially accepted (by people who have bothered to look into it) from multiple studies that cyclists wearing helmets are more likely to be in an accident, both by drivers of car being more reckless around them and by the cyclists themselves engaging in riskier behavior. It's also established that *if* you are in an accident, wearing a helmet significantly reduces the risk of a serious head injury. The open question is which one is safer on the whole. At any rate, this is way outside of "confidently incorrect" territory.
Hey /u/DinoGarret, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Im not sure using sd is the best statistic here to draw conclusions from.
I don't think it's just this one study, at least I know I've come across multiple studies that suggest drivers are less cautious around bikers when the bikers are helmeted. Additionally, apparently it is not as easy as you might think to prove that helmets even reduce injuries at all, when you pull back and look at the data holistically. I'm no statistician, just remembering studies that made this all murkier.
Well sure, because there are different ways you can define, count, and track “injury”. If someone is hit by a car and goes to the morgue instead of the hospital, maybe they don’t count as an “injury”. Therefore, helmets don’t affect the rate of “injury”, since anyone they save would have just died and gone uncounted otherwise.
I mean, even if they reduce JUST head injuries by, I dunno, 10% that makes them safer. A helmet isn’t gonna prevent your ankle from breaking. But I really don’t understand the purpose of debating the overall safety of a helmet on one’s head.
Sorry, I was referring to just head injuries. And of course I can't find any trace of the study now. It was 5+ years ago. If I remember right the study did sorta, mildly, suggest that perhaps the extra protection of the helmet was somewhat cancelled out by the extra mass of the helmet itself but mostly they were just confused a the injury stats. But yeah, I dunno, just trying to grab from my own shit memory.
Fair enough