Japan has new helmet laws that this might qualify for. It’s going to provide the most minimal amount of protection, but allows them to skirt the law while being small, packable, and somewhat fashionable.
I saw from a recent video that the latest Japan bike helmet law is voluntary. But Japan being Japan. Every older bike rider voluntarily went out and bought bike helmets to comply. That’s why bike shops suddenly have a bike helmet supply shortage.
[Life Where I’m From: What is a Bicycle Shop in Japan is Like](https://youtu.be/BYVVE0D6In0?si=tNKFQOUZHNS5L8Yi)
It’s cool Japanese retro-romantic funsies. It’s not going to do shit to absorb an impact and protect your brain, but would probably protect your scalp somewhat during a slide on asphalt.
it's better than nothing but it's like overkill for dutch biking or cruising the boardwalk and not enough helmet for urban rush hour.
if you need this to avoid a ticket while cruising a path it's not so terrible
Of course not. Imagine a helmet that looks stupid AND doesn’t work.
Jesus Christ, these are like those thin plastic “skid lids” they sell to motorcycle riders who want to be just barely in compliance with helmet laws.
Never got the point of those, they make you look super dorky for wearing what at first glance looks like a bicycle helmet or a toy helmet, and for no reason because they offer essentially zero protection and don't have the convenience of shielding your face from the bugs, the cold, the wind, rain, and any possible road debris.
Proper full face motorcycle helmets look very cool, so why humiliate yourself with a silly little hat when you could wear something that actually protects your head while also making you look like a badass?
Full-faced helmets aren't comfortable, cost more money, have to be cleaned more often, and don't conform to the aesthetic of the bike. Stupid reasons imo, but more than enough for them. If they lived somewhere without helmet laws, they wouldn't wear anything.
I'd argue full face helmets are a lot more comfortable becase they keep the wind off your face if you keep the visor down. I mean, at medium to high speeds wind gets so loud it's literally deafening, it's hard to keep your eyes open, plus the ocasional bug hitting them, and although it's nice in summer to cool you down, in winter a full face helmet keeping all the cold wind off your face makes the ride a lot more pleasant. A half helmet could be more comfortable in summer by keeping you cooler, but if you keep the visor up and your helmet is well ventilated you can still get a lot of wind without sacrificing safety and looks.
I guess some of those issues don't matter if you only ride in summer with nice weather, and you could mitigate some of the other downsides to a degree by wearing googles and earplugs, but even then I'd rather just wear a full face helmet. I understand wanting to match the aesthetics of the bike though, but in my opinion half helmets look bad on any bike. [Something like this](https://www.biltwellinc.com/cdn/shop/products/GRINGO-S-BLACK-SPECTRUM_PDP-APP1.jpg) would match the looks of a cafe racer, a cruiser or a Vespa while being safe to wear.
They're cheap though, I'll give them that, but a decent enough full face helmet is like 120, so it's probably not our of reach for someone who spent thousands of dollars on a brand new Harley Davidson.
Sorry, my comment was about motorcycles since the other comment brought up motorcycle riders buying those thin plastic half helmets as a way to get around helmet laws. I have a full face motorcycle helmet, I never attempted to wear it while riding a bicycle but I know it wouldn't be a pleasant experience. I wear a BMX-style half helmet when I'm riding a bicycle.
And I kinda miss the full face helmet when I'm on a bicycle, it's very nice to have in winter or when it rains to keep your face warm and dry, but I know I couldn't wear it on a bicycle without it being a huge nuisance and probably giving me a heat stroke if I tried it in summer.
full face helmets fill up with CO2 which is very bad. when you're really cranking you're just breathing in waste gas.
it's a big problem in historical swordfighting where the visors don't flip up for safety and insurance reasons. you'll gas out in minutes if you go hard
if you think about it a motorcycle helmet is 90% of the way to putting a plastic bag over your head.
It makes sense because if you make a weird looking helmet all you will get is of course a weird looking helmet. It won't stop being a helmet with all the stigma attached to it, but now it has the added downside of making you look like a huge dork for putting something so ugly on your head.
Casque is the French word for helmet, they use it for the modern plastic bike helmets too. It's funny when someone uses that as the name of their helmet.
First decent modern plastic helmet was the Bell Biker. It came out in 1975. It didn't really catch on for a few years. People were still wearing leather hairnets into the '80s.
I'm sure they're better than nothing but I would be astonished if this performed anywhere near a modern helmet. You can't unscramble an egg, these are idiotic
When I was a kid, we had to have a knit cap to protect our head on the ice rink. No headbands were allowed. Too dangerous. This is similar to the knit cap.
Worse even than a helmet as they give an illusion of safety without actually offering any. The Japanese are pretty strict on matters of safety, I’d be surprised if these aren’t banned before long.
Old-school thing, called hairnets.
Proto helmet that really only provided protection from abrasion. There's a good quote about them along the lines of: "at least they keep your ears from being scraped off".
That casque looks and feels dumb, has the protection level of a wet paper bag, but some people are going to defend it as being fine and with some "aesthetic" value, and rejecting hard helmets for cyclists as being inconvenient because they say Japanese and Dutch mostly ride slow on step-thru bikes. Thus I'm guessing Blue Lug sells it apparently for that specific market.
This is a weird position to take, especially nowadays when there are a glut of fashionable helmets that look good to wear. You can even go retro and buy one of those 90s NOS helmets that make you look like Toad
It’s not a fashion thing for me. It’s a question of there being very little evidence that they actually make a difference in a collision with a two-ton metal box flying at you at 100km/hr. It also feels good to ride without a helmet. Bicycling is safer than lots of activities that people do helmet-less.
Helmets are not sold as protection from straight on automotive collisions. No one buys a helmet expecting it to save their life in these situations. Helmets primarily protect your head from the ground. If you get nudged or clipped by a car and your head hits the ground a helmet will protect you.
Do what you want. But you're making a bad argument against wearing a helmet. You'd be making a better argument by just stating there's no law requiring adults to wear helmets.
They’re a plastic hat with some hard foam. They offer a bit of protection but can also be crushed, the straps can snag, they’re often worn too far back to protect the forehead, they do nothing to prevent neck injuries (or injuries to anywhere they aren’t covering obviously,) and there’s a reasonable argument to be made that they cause risk compensation (the phenomenon where the impression that your safety gear protects you leads you to engage in riskier behavior which leads to overall more risk than if you’d foregone the protective equipment,) etc.
Some cycling advocacy groups don’t just advocate against helmet laws, but also against ads and campaigns featuring commuters wearing helmets because it gives the false impression that cycling is unsafe which then leads to fewer cyclists on the roads and therefore more deadly roadways.
Do what you want. I wear a helmet on long rides where I know I’ll be exhausted at the end, when riding more than around the neighborhood at night, or anything mountain bikey. You do you!
Eh, I knew it’d be downvoted hard. I believe in data and evidence. I love vaccines and our big round planet and I’m opposed to helmet absolutism because it discourages cycling which is a generally safe activity that doesn’t require special protective equipment or clothing to enjoy safely. It doesn’t matter if you have a helmet on when an SUV crushes you. If you want to feel the wind in your hair on a bike commute on a hot day that’s A-OK and should not be treated as if it’s reckless.
It wouldnt even be an argument to say that most cycling accidents happen due to falls. Whether that fall is caused by a slick ice patch, wet grass, hitting a curb wrong, a rock under the tire that moves unexpectedly, a kid stepping out into your way, or otherwise, they happen. EVERYONE who has ridden a bike enough has fallen. Ive got two broken wrists right now because a loose dog clipped my front wheel. Shit happens.
Take a hard enough spill, hit your head hard enough without a helmet, and its crayons for christmas, no vehicle impact required.
"[Based on studies from several countries published in the period 1987–1998, the summary odds ratio estimate for efficacy is 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.29, 0.55) for head injury, 0.42 (0.26, 0.67) for brain injury, 0.53 (0.39, 0.73) for facial injury and 0.27 (0.10, 0.71) for fatal injury. This indicates a statistically significant protective effect of helmets. Three studies provided neck injury results that were unfavourable to helmets with a summary estimate of 1.36 (1.00, 1.86), but this result may not be applicable to the lighter helmets currently in use. In conclusion, the evidence is clear that bicycle helmets prevent serious injury and even death.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500000488?casa_token=gW6M-Hba00QAAAAA:lV3r_QcAhMhKO_Hpxk7yKvXwa6-jxZB80ZBu1QGvp7OdCF0senhQW1u-1VzYDRAHML_1XEZYbxA)"
Yeah, it’s another one of those situations where deaths are prevented so injuries seem to increase
Same way that once the military started wearing body armor across-the-board, we had a lot more limb amputations again suddenly
Limb damage didn’t actually increase. We just had a lot of people with damage limbs that survived when they otherwise wouldn’t have it in the past.
Why not just quote that? Do you understand what "*the summary odds ratio estimate for efficacy is 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.29, 0.55) for head injury*" means?
>I do,
Oh good, can you tell me: is this is a 40% reduction in the severity of head injuries of cyclists involved in crashes? Or is it a 29% to 55% reduction in incidence of head injuries of cyclists followed over a fixed period of time? Or something else? The word "estimate" implies that it is not really a simple measurement but that they do further analysis.
Feel free to use statistical jargon in your explanation. I too am scientifically literate but this information was not provided in the non-paywalled version of the article.
>TLDR
I did read, and I can say that your summary is not accurate.
* this is not a study, it is a review which is attempting to statistically merge the reported results of many other studies
* they don't report on reduction of severity, they report reduction of incidence
I don't disagree with the conclusion "[the evidence is clear that bicycle helmets prevent serious injury and even death](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500000488?casa_token=gW6M-Hba00QAAAAA:lV3r_QcAhMhKO_Hpxk7yKvXwa6-jxZB80ZBu1QGvp7OdCF0senhQW1u-1VzYDRAHML_1XEZYbxA)", I just don't think people should be quoting numbers that no one is going to understand in support of their argument (not even a statistician could tell you what those numbers really mean without reading the paywalled article), it makes your argument less compelling rather than more.
tldr; scientific literature is written for scientific practitioners, not lay-people, so be careful when using it for arguing on the internet
Yeah, I said "a review which is attempting to statistically merge the reported results of many other studies" rather than "meta-analysis" assuming the person I was replying to needed to have the idea of "meta-analysis" explained. I should have say, "a scientific paper" instead of "a review" since review can mean something more specific.
the full text is [here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500000488?casa_token=8-pOK8hENBkAAAAA:0E9TQCOR7-WRR3piikXbGURcnFH1buSQEvm87CvsL0QAQAd6QZv5e6VCZAJEV1zVAkPyEngK_SE) if you would like it
I was excited for a second, but alas, my institution does not subscribe to this publication so I can only read the same limited preview linked up-thread
I just put the title into google scholar and the link to full text came up. I was not using any institutional login but that link, when accessed from Reddit does only provide an abstract. I guess you should be able to view the full text if you do the Google search
Yeah that's fair but the math I think is actually pretty simple. Somebody check me if I'm wrong:
The odds ratios above are the ratio of your odds of experiencing an injury while wearing a helmet over your odds of experiencing the injury without it. Because the odds ratios are less than 1, you know that helmets have a protective effect, because a ratio <1 means the the denominator must be larger.
So like
"a" = injured w/ helmet
"b" = uninjured w/ helmet
"c" = injured w/o helmet
"d" = uninjured w/o helmet
So the calculation the authors are doing to arrive at the numbers above is this: odds ratio = (a/b) / (c/d)
Yes, that's basically it. Although, since it's a review of multiple studies they are in fact doing more fancy analysis to estimate this ratio and they don't really say what the study population is, which makes it harder to interpret the numbers. If I wanted a lay-person to understand these numbers, I would say:
>If you have a 1% chance of getting a head injury while wearing a helmet, then this review says you have a 2.9% to 5.5% chance of getting a head injury while not wearing a helmet.
The 1% number being made up, it's not reported here. Hard to say whether they are measuring chances of getting an injury per mile traveled, or chance of getting an injury if you are in a collision or what.
I said they are "*basically mumbo-jumbo if you are not a statistician*", I didn't say I wasn't a statistician or that they actually are mumbo-jumbo (although they are very very vague)
Japan has new helmet laws that this might qualify for. It’s going to provide the most minimal amount of protection, but allows them to skirt the law while being small, packable, and somewhat fashionable.
I saw from a recent video that the latest Japan bike helmet law is voluntary. But Japan being Japan. Every older bike rider voluntarily went out and bought bike helmets to comply. That’s why bike shops suddenly have a bike helmet supply shortage. [Life Where I’m From: What is a Bicycle Shop in Japan is Like](https://youtu.be/BYVVE0D6In0?si=tNKFQOUZHNS5L8Yi)
That video was very interesting in general. Thank you! So many aspects…
Huh, I didn’t know it was voluntary.
It’s cool Japanese retro-romantic funsies. It’s not going to do shit to absorb an impact and protect your brain, but would probably protect your scalp somewhat during a slide on asphalt.
Somebody reinvented the leather hairnet without the leather.
it's better than nothing but it's like overkill for dutch biking or cruising the boardwalk and not enough helmet for urban rush hour. if you need this to avoid a ticket while cruising a path it's not so terrible
id argue id rather wear nothing than be forced to wear that abomination lol
Well, wait for the 70s retro roadbike wave in bike-clothing… The caps are already there.
what does that entail? people are already rocking cut off jean shorts and vintage shirts while riding these days
There's a reason football players died on the field during the leatherhead era. I like Blue Lug as much as the next bike nerd but this is so stupid.
Strictly fashion. 100% not head/brain protection. *Might* protect your hat.
Of course not. Imagine a helmet that looks stupid AND doesn’t work. Jesus Christ, these are like those thin plastic “skid lids” they sell to motorcycle riders who want to be just barely in compliance with helmet laws.
Never got the point of those, they make you look super dorky for wearing what at first glance looks like a bicycle helmet or a toy helmet, and for no reason because they offer essentially zero protection and don't have the convenience of shielding your face from the bugs, the cold, the wind, rain, and any possible road debris. Proper full face motorcycle helmets look very cool, so why humiliate yourself with a silly little hat when you could wear something that actually protects your head while also making you look like a badass?
Full-faced helmets aren't comfortable, cost more money, have to be cleaned more often, and don't conform to the aesthetic of the bike. Stupid reasons imo, but more than enough for them. If they lived somewhere without helmet laws, they wouldn't wear anything.
I'd argue full face helmets are a lot more comfortable becase they keep the wind off your face if you keep the visor down. I mean, at medium to high speeds wind gets so loud it's literally deafening, it's hard to keep your eyes open, plus the ocasional bug hitting them, and although it's nice in summer to cool you down, in winter a full face helmet keeping all the cold wind off your face makes the ride a lot more pleasant. A half helmet could be more comfortable in summer by keeping you cooler, but if you keep the visor up and your helmet is well ventilated you can still get a lot of wind without sacrificing safety and looks. I guess some of those issues don't matter if you only ride in summer with nice weather, and you could mitigate some of the other downsides to a degree by wearing googles and earplugs, but even then I'd rather just wear a full face helmet. I understand wanting to match the aesthetics of the bike though, but in my opinion half helmets look bad on any bike. [Something like this](https://www.biltwellinc.com/cdn/shop/products/GRINGO-S-BLACK-SPECTRUM_PDP-APP1.jpg) would match the looks of a cafe racer, a cruiser or a Vespa while being safe to wear. They're cheap though, I'll give them that, but a decent enough full face helmet is like 120, so it's probably not our of reach for someone who spent thousands of dollars on a brand new Harley Davidson.
[удалено]
Sorry, my comment was about motorcycles since the other comment brought up motorcycle riders buying those thin plastic half helmets as a way to get around helmet laws. I have a full face motorcycle helmet, I never attempted to wear it while riding a bicycle but I know it wouldn't be a pleasant experience. I wear a BMX-style half helmet when I'm riding a bicycle. And I kinda miss the full face helmet when I'm on a bicycle, it's very nice to have in winter or when it rains to keep your face warm and dry, but I know I couldn't wear it on a bicycle without it being a huge nuisance and probably giving me a heat stroke if I tried it in summer.
full face helmets fill up with CO2 which is very bad. when you're really cranking you're just breathing in waste gas. it's a big problem in historical swordfighting where the visors don't flip up for safety and insurance reasons. you'll gas out in minutes if you go hard if you think about it a motorcycle helmet is 90% of the way to putting a plastic bag over your head.
Am I the only person who thinks these look so stupid I'd rather just wear a helmet?
Imo every attempt to make a "less nerdy" helmet ends up looking worse than just wearing a helmet.
It makes sense because if you make a weird looking helmet all you will get is of course a weird looking helmet. It won't stop being a helmet with all the stigma attached to it, but now it has the added downside of making you look like a huge dork for putting something so ugly on your head.
[удалено]
I would like an affordable helmet that I wear like a Basecap or small sun-hat; ‘cause I grab that automatically when leaving the apartment.
No, that’s the literal reason I made the thread
Not in the slightest.
Brown jockstrap for your head. What’s not to love?
Gonna end up in a Casquet For real tho I don’t judge helmet use do whatever
Casque is the French word for helmet, they use it for the modern plastic bike helmets too. It's funny when someone uses that as the name of their helmet.
Looks like something a Soviet T-34 tank crewman would wear in the way to Berlin in 1945.
I recall seeing Geoff Capes wearing something exactly like this in the cycling event of the 1979 "Superstars".
First decent modern plastic helmet was the Bell Biker. It came out in 1975. It didn't really catch on for a few years. People were still wearing leather hairnets into the '80s.
Yeesh that's someone I haven't thought about in a very long time. Along with Barry Sheene and Isla St Clair. Must still have some functional neurons.
They won’t do shit. Wear a proper helmet.
I'm sure they're better than nothing but I would be astonished if this performed anywhere near a modern helmet. You can't unscramble an egg, these are idiotic
Looks familiar… https://preview.redd.it/v7j5lk7hsjbd1.jpeg?width=722&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fe134a298cdcecc3330da8741b022bded41cad32
I mean you can get it in leopard print, so no
Full silly billy vibes
MIPS?
When I was a kid, we had to have a knit cap to protect our head on the ice rink. No headbands were allowed. Too dangerous. This is similar to the knit cap.
Nothing protects like waxed cotton 😂
Worse even than a helmet as they give an illusion of safety without actually offering any. The Japanese are pretty strict on matters of safety, I’d be surprised if these aren’t banned before long.
Old-school thing, called hairnets. Proto helmet that really only provided protection from abrasion. There's a good quote about them along the lines of: "at least they keep your ears from being scraped off".
That casque looks and feels dumb, has the protection level of a wet paper bag, but some people are going to defend it as being fine and with some "aesthetic" value, and rejecting hard helmets for cyclists as being inconvenient because they say Japanese and Dutch mostly ride slow on step-thru bikes. Thus I'm guessing Blue Lug sells it apparently for that specific market.
Buy one and send it to Virginia Tech for helmet testing. Blue Lug will pull it out on the market so fast with an apology.
“Real” helmets don’t offer much protection either.
This is a weird position to take, especially nowadays when there are a glut of fashionable helmets that look good to wear. You can even go retro and buy one of those 90s NOS helmets that make you look like Toad
It’s not a fashion thing for me. It’s a question of there being very little evidence that they actually make a difference in a collision with a two-ton metal box flying at you at 100km/hr. It also feels good to ride without a helmet. Bicycling is safer than lots of activities that people do helmet-less.
Helmets are not sold as protection from straight on automotive collisions. No one buys a helmet expecting it to save their life in these situations. Helmets primarily protect your head from the ground. If you get nudged or clipped by a car and your head hits the ground a helmet will protect you. Do what you want. But you're making a bad argument against wearing a helmet. You'd be making a better argument by just stating there's no law requiring adults to wear helmets.
Explain please.
They’re a plastic hat with some hard foam. They offer a bit of protection but can also be crushed, the straps can snag, they’re often worn too far back to protect the forehead, they do nothing to prevent neck injuries (or injuries to anywhere they aren’t covering obviously,) and there’s a reasonable argument to be made that they cause risk compensation (the phenomenon where the impression that your safety gear protects you leads you to engage in riskier behavior which leads to overall more risk than if you’d foregone the protective equipment,) etc. Some cycling advocacy groups don’t just advocate against helmet laws, but also against ads and campaigns featuring commuters wearing helmets because it gives the false impression that cycling is unsafe which then leads to fewer cyclists on the roads and therefore more deadly roadways. Do what you want. I wear a helmet on long rides where I know I’ll be exhausted at the end, when riding more than around the neighborhood at night, or anything mountain bikey. You do you!
All good points, but they do offer significant protection to the head in the event of a collision.
I question “significant” but yeah I’m not anti-helmet and if I’m going to bonk my head on a tree I’d rather do it with a helmet on. Do what you like.
Ok, Grant P., shouldn’t you be Just Ride-ing?
Hey I’m the one here not telling other adults what to wear. Pretty confusing amount of hate I’m getting.
Somebody find me the Venn diagram with helmet truthers, anti-vaxxers, and flat-earthers.
O
Eh, I knew it’d be downvoted hard. I believe in data and evidence. I love vaccines and our big round planet and I’m opposed to helmet absolutism because it discourages cycling which is a generally safe activity that doesn’t require special protective equipment or clothing to enjoy safely. It doesn’t matter if you have a helmet on when an SUV crushes you. If you want to feel the wind in your hair on a bike commute on a hot day that’s A-OK and should not be treated as if it’s reckless.
Most cycling accidents don’t involve being crushed by an SUV.
It wouldnt even be an argument to say that most cycling accidents happen due to falls. Whether that fall is caused by a slick ice patch, wet grass, hitting a curb wrong, a rock under the tire that moves unexpectedly, a kid stepping out into your way, or otherwise, they happen. EVERYONE who has ridden a bike enough has fallen. Ive got two broken wrists right now because a loose dog clipped my front wheel. Shit happens. Take a hard enough spill, hit your head hard enough without a helmet, and its crayons for christmas, no vehicle impact required.
"[Based on studies from several countries published in the period 1987–1998, the summary odds ratio estimate for efficacy is 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.29, 0.55) for head injury, 0.42 (0.26, 0.67) for brain injury, 0.53 (0.39, 0.73) for facial injury and 0.27 (0.10, 0.71) for fatal injury. This indicates a statistically significant protective effect of helmets. Three studies provided neck injury results that were unfavourable to helmets with a summary estimate of 1.36 (1.00, 1.86), but this result may not be applicable to the lighter helmets currently in use. In conclusion, the evidence is clear that bicycle helmets prevent serious injury and even death.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500000488?casa_token=gW6M-Hba00QAAAAA:lV3r_QcAhMhKO_Hpxk7yKvXwa6-jxZB80ZBu1QGvp7OdCF0senhQW1u-1VzYDRAHML_1XEZYbxA)"
Yeah, it’s another one of those situations where deaths are prevented so injuries seem to increase Same way that once the military started wearing body armor across-the-board, we had a lot more limb amputations again suddenly Limb damage didn’t actually increase. We just had a lot of people with damage limbs that survived when they otherwise wouldn’t have it in the past.
45% for head injury, 33% for brain injury, 27% for facial injury and 29% for fatal injury
I am all for citing sources when arguing on the internet, but dude, these quoted numbers are basically mumbo-jumbo if you are not a statistician.
"in conclusion the evidence is clear, bike helmets prevent serious injuries and death"
Why not just quote that? Do you understand what "*the summary odds ratio estimate for efficacy is 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.29, 0.55) for head injury*" means?
I do, because I think it's important to scientifically literate. And if you don't understand it, then you can just read the conclusion.
>I do, Oh good, can you tell me: is this is a 40% reduction in the severity of head injuries of cyclists involved in crashes? Or is it a 29% to 55% reduction in incidence of head injuries of cyclists followed over a fixed period of time? Or something else? The word "estimate" implies that it is not really a simple measurement but that they do further analysis. Feel free to use statistical jargon in your explanation. I too am scientifically literate but this information was not provided in the non-paywalled version of the article.
TLDR, according to this study helmets reduce the severity of all of those kinds of injuries significantly, including death
>TLDR I did read, and I can say that your summary is not accurate. * this is not a study, it is a review which is attempting to statistically merge the reported results of many other studies * they don't report on reduction of severity, they report reduction of incidence I don't disagree with the conclusion "[the evidence is clear that bicycle helmets prevent serious injury and even death](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500000488?casa_token=gW6M-Hba00QAAAAA:lV3r_QcAhMhKO_Hpxk7yKvXwa6-jxZB80ZBu1QGvp7OdCF0senhQW1u-1VzYDRAHML_1XEZYbxA)", I just don't think people should be quoting numbers that no one is going to understand in support of their argument (not even a statistician could tell you what those numbers really mean without reading the paywalled article), it makes your argument less compelling rather than more. tldr; scientific literature is written for scientific practitioners, not lay-people, so be careful when using it for arguing on the internet
It’s a meta-analysis, not a review.
Yeah, I said "a review which is attempting to statistically merge the reported results of many other studies" rather than "meta-analysis" assuming the person I was replying to needed to have the idea of "meta-analysis" explained. I should have say, "a scientific paper" instead of "a review" since review can mean something more specific.
the full text is [here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500000488?casa_token=8-pOK8hENBkAAAAA:0E9TQCOR7-WRR3piikXbGURcnFH1buSQEvm87CvsL0QAQAd6QZv5e6VCZAJEV1zVAkPyEngK_SE) if you would like it
I was excited for a second, but alas, my institution does not subscribe to this publication so I can only read the same limited preview linked up-thread
I just put the title into google scholar and the link to full text came up. I was not using any institutional login but that link, when accessed from Reddit does only provide an abstract. I guess you should be able to view the full text if you do the Google search
Yeah that's fair but the math I think is actually pretty simple. Somebody check me if I'm wrong: The odds ratios above are the ratio of your odds of experiencing an injury while wearing a helmet over your odds of experiencing the injury without it. Because the odds ratios are less than 1, you know that helmets have a protective effect, because a ratio <1 means the the denominator must be larger. So like "a" = injured w/ helmet "b" = uninjured w/ helmet "c" = injured w/o helmet "d" = uninjured w/o helmet So the calculation the authors are doing to arrive at the numbers above is this: odds ratio = (a/b) / (c/d)
Yes, that's basically it. Although, since it's a review of multiple studies they are in fact doing more fancy analysis to estimate this ratio and they don't really say what the study population is, which makes it harder to interpret the numbers. If I wanted a lay-person to understand these numbers, I would say: >If you have a 1% chance of getting a head injury while wearing a helmet, then this review says you have a 2.9% to 5.5% chance of getting a head injury while not wearing a helmet. The 1% number being made up, it's not reported here. Hard to say whether they are measuring chances of getting an injury per mile traveled, or chance of getting an injury if you are in a collision or what.
for someone calling odds ratios mumbo jumbo, you sound a lot like a statistician now.
I said they are "*basically mumbo-jumbo if you are not a statistician*", I didn't say I wasn't a statistician or that they actually are mumbo-jumbo (although they are very very vague)
I mean, if these ‘casque’ things count as helmets, I don’t think any of this is accurate.
I’m sure they don’t lol
[https://www.instagram.com/reel/C547ukkLY75/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C547ukkLY75/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)