Great Helmet War
Cluts Jason Merle
mention the Great Helmet War. Can someone please fill me in on
what this was all about?
-J
Dave Althoff
: In reading another article posted on this group I noticed someone
: mention the Great Helmet War. Can someone please fill me in on
: what this was all about?
: -J
Easy. There are essentially two arguments, both related.
a. Should helmets be worn while bicycling.
b. Should helmets be required (i.e. by law, etc.) while bicycling.
The arguments boil down into the following points of view:
a. Helmets are a good idea.
b. Helmets are a good idea and everyone should be forced to use them.
c. Helmets are a good idea, but no one should be forced to use them.
d. Helmets are essentially useless but wouldn't hurt.
e. Helmets are essentially useless and should not be required
f. Helmets are dangerous and should not be used
g. Without regard to effectiveness, helmets should be required.
h. Without regard to effectiveness, requiring helmets would be unreasonable.
Naturally, people holding any of these opinions are highly unlikely to
change, and any discussion quickly degenerates into name-calling,
meaningless arguments, and lots and lots of anecdotes. My suggestion is
that you not even bring the subject up. Whether or not you use a lid,
whether or not you advocate requiring them, don't even suggest to anyone
else that he use/not use one. Just like bringing up religion at a dinner
party.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
(hoping to stop this one before it starts...!)
--
/-\ _ _ __ *** .SIG NOW OPEN!!!! ***
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /XX\_ _ _ _____
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ _/XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX\ /X\ /X\ /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX
Bastian Wimmer
dal...@freenet.columbus.oh.us says...
It's quite simple, really: As we all know, there are
people with brains, and people with nothing between
their ears. Cyclists with brains quickly realize
that it hurts (and worse) when you bang them on the
pavement -- and so they wear helmets. People with air
between their ears have nothing to protect -- and so
they don't.
Best,
Bastian Wimmer
ima...@pop03.ny.us.ibm.net
Dave Althoff
Dammit, that was exactly what I was hoping to avoid.
Here we go again...
--Dave
DEREK HODGE
+people with brains, and people with nothing between
+their ears. Cyclists with brains quickly realize
+that it hurts (and worse) when you bang them on the
+pavement -- and so they wear helmets. People with air
+between their ears have nothing to protect -- and so
+they don't.
Paranoid cyclists who wanted to reduce the risk of head injury to an
absolute minimum would do all their recreational cycling at home on
rollers, wearing their helmets.
They might think that anyone who accepts the extra risk involved in
riding on the road was a moron with nothing between their ears.
They would be wrong, just like you.
Derek Hodge (derek...@almac.co.uk)
* 1st 2.00j #5135 *
Bastian Wimmer
dal...@freenet.columbus.oh.us says...
>
>(previous post made comments about ears, brains, and
such)
>
>Dammit, that was exactly what I was hoping to avoid.
>
>Here we go again...
>
comments to be combative or anything of the sort. Nor
would I argue everyone's right to come to their own
conclusions about helmets, and wear them or not wear
them as they please. There are, however, some facts
that exist independently of people's opinions, tastes
and fancies. Fact 1: In the United States, over 900
cyclists are fatally injured every year. Fact 2:
Almost 80% of these die of head injuries. Fact 3:
Three fourths of these deaths could be avoided with
bicycling helmets. End of argument. Let's debate
these facts, not each other.
Best,
Bastian Wimmer
ima...@pop03.ny.us.ibm.net
Florin Feldman
>In article <3ukjq7$h...@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
>dal...@freenet.columbus.oh.us says...
>>
>>Cluts Jason Merle (j-c...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>>: In reading another article posted on this group I
>noticed someone
>>: mention the Great Helmet War. Can someone please
>fill me in on
>>: what this was all about?
>>: -J
[stuff deleted]
>>My suggestion is
>>that you not even bring the subject up. Whether or
>>not you use a lid, whether or not you advocate requiring them, don't
>>even suggest to anyone else that he use/not use one.
>It's quite simple, really: As we all know, there are
>people with brains, and people with nothing between
>their ears. Cyclists with brains quickly realize
>that it hurts (and worse) when you bang them on the
>pavement -- and so they wear helmets. People with air
>between their ears have nothing to protect -- and so
>they don't.
>
>Best,
>Bastian Wimmer
>ima...@pop03.ny.us.ibm.net
This is a great example of the kind of morons who never miss
a perfect opportunity to shut up! The good advice was, and
will always be, do what you want to do, but let others do what
they want to do!
Florin
tony atoms
I think the key phrase was "bang them on the pavement." The helmet people, apparently, enjoy, or otherwise feel compelled to bang th=
eir heads on the pavement. If this is true, and I must say I find it a bit hard to accept, then a helmet would be an excellent thing=
to wear.
tony atoms finger for pgp public key
http://www.ecn.bgu.edu/users/uaadams/tone.html
------------------------------------------------------------
stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal
more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm
Information Services
>comments to be combative or anything of the sort. Nor
>would I argue everyone's right to come to their own
>conclusions about helmets, and wear them or not wear
>them as they please. There are, however, some facts
>that exist independently of people's opinions, tastes
>and fancies. Fact 1: In the United States, over 900
>cyclists are fatally injured every year. Fact 2:
>Almost 80% of these die of head injuries. Fact 3:
>Three fourths of these deaths could be avoided with
>bicycling helmets. End of argument. Let's debate
>these facts, not each other.
O.K., you're on; post the citations for the research which supports these
so-called "facts", including the statistical sampling methods used, the
qualifications of the individuals or organizations responsible for
collecting this information, corroborating studies, and dates performed.
When you've proven that your position is based on more than hearsay,
superstition and ignorance, we'll debate the relative merit of the actual
data upon which you've made these assertions.
RES
--
KPMG Peat Marwick | Los Angeles
Information Services | California, U.S.A.
Sara Easler
In article <3uv0ov$j...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, ima...@pop03.ny.us.ibm.net (Bastian Wimmer) writes:
|> Sorry if you took offense. I did not intend my
|> comments to be combative or anything of the sort.
Give me a break.
"and so they wear helmets. People with air
between their ears have nothing to protect -- and so
they don't."
Insults are kind of combative don't you think ? Whatever your
intent is, lacing your remarks with comments like this only fuel
'Helmet Wars' and detract from and meaningful discussion.
[snip]
|> and fancies. Fact 1: In the United States, over 900
|> cyclists are fatally injured every year. Fact 2:
|> Almost 80% of these die of head injuries. Fact 3:
|> Three fourths of these deaths could be avoided with
|> bicycling helmets. End of argument.
Please check your "facts." Where did you get them? Was it
from an advertisement for helmets by chance? Or from that
wonderful body of government beaueracrats, the CPSC?
My understanding is that you are correct about Fact #1 but
let's put it in perspective. The major cause of death for all
road users is head injuries, that includes motor vehicle ^^^
occupants (~40,000) and pedestrians (don't know exact figures
but know its' more than 900). Why single out cyclists for
helmets when they constitute a such a small minority?
As for "Facts' #2, & #3. Studies done on the effectiveness of
styrofoam helmets, in fact, vary greatly in their conclusions. The 75%
you cite is amongst the very highest of estimates. The studies
with such optimistic results tested styrofoam helmets under optimum
conditions, eg: fit perfect, brand new helmet and did not take into
account risk compensation. Other less published studies have
shown no benefit at all.
"Cycle Helmets - The Case for and Against" by Mayer Hillman
includes references to several of the studies done on bicycle
helmets. Based on the evidence presented in this report, the British
Medical Association recommended against mandatory helmet laws.
If you're interested in a copy write to :
Cycle Touring & Campaigning
69 Meadrow, Godalming, Surrey,
GU73HS, England
The call number is ISBN 0-85374-602-8
|> Let's debate
|> these facts, not each other.
This is inconsistent with the tone of your post.
Sara
Bastian Wimmer
Wolfgan...@gmd.de says...
>
>If you have a brain, draw your conclusions. If you
don't, you
>obviously haven't.
>
Right. To quote our esteemed recent Vice President
Dan Quayle: "A mind is a terrible thing not to have".
Bastian Wimmer
Bastian Wimmer
flo...@vax2.concordia.ca says...
>
>This is a great example of the kind of morons who
never miss
>a perfect opportunity to shut up! The good advice
was, and
>will always be, do what you want to do, but let
others do what
>they want to do!
>
>Florin
>
If you would stop foaming from the mouth for a minute
and take the time to read my earlier post, you would
find that this is exactly what it says.
Bastian Wimmer
ima...@pop04.ny.us.ibm.net
Bastian Wimmer
sea...@bnr.ca says...
>
>
>In article <3uv0ov$j...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
ima...@pop03.ny.us.ibm.net (Bas
>tian Wimmer) writes:
>
>|> Sorry if you took offense. I did not intend my
>|> comments to be combative or anything of the sort.
>
>Give me a break.
You're right. It was meant as a harmless joke -- but
I admit that it reads less benign than I intended it.
My apologies.
>
>|> Fact 1: In the United States, over 900
>|> cyclists are fatally injured every year. Fact 2:
>|> Almost 80% of these die of head injuries. Fact 3:
>|> Three fourths of these deaths could be avoided
with
>|> bicycling helmets. End of argument.
>
>Please check your "facts." Where did you get
them?
>Was it from an advertisement for helmets by chance?
These figures are published and frequently used by
the Snell Foundation, Velo News, and the Bicycle
Helmet Safety Institute (which is not a mercenary
organization financed by the helmet industry but a
non-profit, consumer advocacy program operated by the
Washington Area Bicyclist Association). I would be
the first to admit that some of these numbers, e.g.
the "75% that could be avoided", are open to
interpretation -- but not to negation.
>The major cause of death for all road users is head
>injuries, that includes motor vehicle occupants
>(~40,000) and pedestrians (don't know exact figures
>but know its' more than 900). Why single out
>cyclists for helmets when they constitute a such a
>small minority?
Because this is a newsgroup about bicycling, and
because we are talking about cycling helmets. It is
true that many more people die in automobiles (and in
Bosnia, Ruanda etc. etc.), but this has no bearing on
our discussion-at-hand. Besides, seatbelt use is
mandatory for drivers.
>As for "Facts' #2, & #3. Studies done on the
>effectiveness of styrofoam helmets, in fact, vary
>greatly in their conclusions. The 75% you cite is
>amongst the very highest of estimates. The studies
>with such optimistic results tested styrofoam
>helmets under optimum conditions, eg: fit perfect,
>brand new helmet and did not take into account risk
compensation. Other less published studies have
>shown no benefit at all.
My information is based on tests published in Cycling
Science Magazine. Again, reasonable people can
disagree about the numbers, but it's NOT reasonable
to conclude that helmets offer no benefits at all
(By the way: I don't kow what you mean by *risk
compensation*).
To this I add my personal experience as a cyclist who
rides about 6000 miles a year: having gotten myself
into a crash or two when I was glad that I did wear
my helmet, and observing a half-dozen of bad
accidents (and one that was truly horrible) where it
was totally obvious that the victims were paying a
very high price for not wearing one.
>
>|> Let's debate
>|> these facts, not each other.
>
>This is inconsistent with the tone of your post.
You're right. Please see above. Again, my apologies.
I will now retire from this argument, put on my
helmet -- and go cycling.
Best regards,
Bastian Wimmer
ima...@pop03.ny.us.ibm.net
Bastian Wimmer
to...@netcom.com says...
>
>
> Fact 3:
>>Three fourths of these deaths could be avoided with
>>bicycling helmets.
>
>Yet in New Zealand and Australia this hasn't been
the case.
That must be because, being in the Southern
hemisphere, they're cycling upside down. I was
referring to statistical information collected in the
United States.
Best,
Bastian Wimmer
Thomas H. Kunich
Bastian Wimmer <ima...@pop03.ny.us.ibm.net> wrote:
>1: In the United States, over 900
>cyclists are fatally injured every year.
Uh, how many crack babies die from tramatic birth? Who would you
rather put your money into?
>Fact 2:
>Almost 80% of these die of head injuries.
This is arguable because over half of these fatalities, as I understand
it, are from children being run over by cars WHILE ON THE SIDEWALK. The
head injuries comprise only the _immediate_ cause of death. Were their
heads completely undamaged, most would still die from other injuries.
Fact 3:
>Three fourths of these deaths could be avoided with
>bicycling helmets.
Yet in New Zealand and Australia this hasn't been the case. But I guess
actually practice doesn't make any difference to people who want to believe
that they had don a crash helmet stressed for direct 10 mph collisions and
then jam their heads into a car with combined speeds in excess of 35 mph
and be just as good as new!
End of argument. Let's debate
>these facts, not each other.
Bastian, it's difficult to just debate "these facts" when they are not
facts at all. And when the control freaks are willing to publish
any lie in order to give themselves ground to try and force others
to do what they conclude is in other's best interests.
Tell you what, it you are willing to wear a helmet and let me smack you
in the head with an aluminum baseball bat I may conceed that there is
some protection afforded by a helmet other than cursory.
Mark Hickey
<typical helmet war drivel deleted to save bandwidth>
Folks, let me please summarize the last 10 Gigabytes of helmet war
data....
There are 4 types of people......
1)Folks who feel helmets help you avoid head injury.
They site the facts that they've fallen on their heads quite hard
without major trauma, and follow their common sense which says that
helmets probably protect you better than a good hairdo.
2)Folks who feel helmets don't help you avoid head injury.
They site the fact that most people who die in accidents were smashed
flat by a car/truck/tank, or hit a concrete block going 50mph. They
also believe they can avoid bouncing their head off the pavement
due to what they believe to be their superior bike handling skills.
in addition there are.......
3)Folks who feel that helmets should be mandatory (at least somewhere).
They feel that there will be some decrease in brain trauma if
everyone who bounces their head off the ground does so with an
inch or two of styrofoam around it. They feel that this will
limit the cost of recovery and rehabilitation on the overloaded
and overpriced medical system.
4)Folks who feel that it's their God-given right to NOT wear a helmet.
This group is actually comprised of both Folks from groups 1 & 2.
Folks from group 1 who feel this way are basically saying "hey, it's
your life - take any chances you want to". Folks from group 2 are
saying "You'll pry a helmet onto my head over my cold, dead body,
you Nazi!"
So in the future, instead of hashing out all of the needless, unheeded
diatribe that clutters up the bandwidth, and makes it hard to read the
really cool articles like "Y Bikes rule the woods" or "Kill a cockroach
and you kill the earth", simply answer this posting with your particular
persuasion.
For example, I am a 1-4. See how easy that is... hard to flame too!
> Tell you what, it you are willing to wear a helmet and let me smack you
> in the head with an aluminum baseball bat I may conceed that there is
> some protection afforded by a helmet other than cursory.
Well, luckily this isn't the type of accident I usually have.... but if
you'd like, we can take turns dropping it on each other's heads from....
say 8 feet. I'll take all the cursory protection I can get... ;-)
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
Phill Clink
CJ}From: j-c...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Cluts Jason Merle)
--}Subject: Great Helmet War
--}
--}In reading another article posted on this group I noticed someone
--}mention the Great Helmet War. Can someone please fill me in on
--}what this was all about?
--}-J
--}
--}
PULEEEEEZEEEEE, NOT AGAIN!!!!!!!!
Internet - phill...@emerald.com -
FidoNet - 1:152/22 -
RIME - Emerald -
Springfield, Oregon, USA
CMPQwk/1.42/8137
> The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades!
Wolfgang Strobl
>Right. To quote our esteemed recent Vice President
>Dan Quayle: "A mind is a terrible thing not to have".
You started the debate by writing an idiotic insult as a followup to a
very moderate posting. When people complained, you turned around and
wrote "let's debate these facts, not each other". Now you got those
facts , but that obviously doesn't please you, either.
What's next? Wan't to correct my speling?
--
o ( Wolfgang Strobl Wolfgan...@gmd.de (+49 2241) 14-2394
/\ * GMD mbH
_`\ `_<=== Schloss Birlinghoven, P.O. Box 1316, | #include
__(_)/_(_)___.-._ 53731 Sankt Augustin, Germany | <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Wolfgang Strobl
>Because this is a newsgroup about bicycling, and
>because we are talking about cycling helmets. It is
>true that many more people die in automobiles (and in
>Bosnia, Ruanda etc. etc.), but this has no bearing on
>our discussion-at-hand. Besides, seatbelt use is
>mandatory for drivers.
Wrt. Bosnia: nobody argues about the fact that helmets are usefull for
soldiers, at least during war. But we aren't talking about soldiers in
war, but about normal, everyday traffic. Currently, we debate the
relative dangers of the various modes of transport, and the necessety
of various protective measures to be used in traffic.
So please spare us preprosterous remarks like the one above. Thanks.
Despite mandatory seatbelt laws, people get brain injuries while
driving a car in normal traffic, brain injuries which probably could
have been prevented - or at least lessened - by helmets.
The very same applies to pedestrians.
Together, these two groups make up about ten times as many deaths than
dead cyclists, in Germany. With the additional information that
bicycle traffic has roughly a ten percent share of traffic, in
Germany, we can guess that your chance of getting a brain injury
because of helmetless bicycling is about as high as your chance of
getting a brain injury because of helmetless driving or walking.
So if you believe that the risk of bicycling is so high that it never
should be practiced without a wearing a helmet, what, pray tell, does
prevent me and you from applying the very same reasoning and logic to
people walking or driving a car? After all, a lot more lifes could be
saved that way!
Using the words of the late Bastian Wimmer
"It's quite simple, really: As we all know, there are
people with brains, and people with nothing between
their ears. Pedestrians and car drivers with brains quickly
realize that it hurts (and worse) when you bang them on the
pavement or on the side window -- and so they wear helmets.
People with air between their ears have nothing to protect --
and so they don't."
Ok?
Dave Althoff
I agree. Let's put this one to rest before it gets a chance to get started.
David Casseres
wrote:
> Yet in New Zealand and Australia this hasn't been the case. But I guess
> actually practice doesn't make any difference to people who want to believe
> that they had don a crash helmet stressed for direct 10 mph collisions and
> then jam their heads into a car with combined speeds in excess of 35 mph
> and be just as good as new!
> ...
> Tell you what, it you are willing to wear a helmet and let me smack you
> in the head with an aluminum baseball bat I may conceed that there is
> some protection afforded by a helmet other than cursory.
The helmet doesn'y offer much protection in the direct collision with a
car. However, a lot of head injuries in bike crashes come from falling
(sometimes because of a collision) and hitting your head on the ground.
The impact doesn't depend much on your speed at the time of the fall,
mostly just on how far you fall.
Thought experiment: Imagine that you put a bar stool out on some
pavement, sit on the stool, then pitch yourself onto the ground head
first. Would you rather do this with or without a bike helmet?
Only an idiot thinks that a helmet provides serious protection in all
accidents, and only another idiot thinks a helmet is worthless.
--
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
Information Services
>>Now, allow me to ask you some questions in return. Is
>>*Peat* your first name and *Marwick* your last? Or might
>>you have something in common with the Advertising and PR
>>Agency of a similar name?
>
>Awww, geee, now you're back to "stupid" mode.............
>It's not an advertising and PR company, it's accounting and
>management consulting.......I guess your knowledge of
>business is about as accurate as your "statistics"......
I have no idea how I missed the original post, but thank you Florin for
your eloquent response to it. I do indeed work for the accounting firm KPMG
Peat Marwick LLP. My name is Richard E. Strayer, which I usually
abbreviate "RES" on all of my posts.
>>And if so, are you putting your
>>company on record against bicycle helmets? Is it the
>>official viewpoint of KPMG Peat Marwick Information
>>Services that the position that helmets save lives is
>>based on *hearsay, superstition and ignorance*? May I
>>quote you? And may we know if you -- and/or any of your
>>clients -- have a financial stake in the issue?
Of course not; I speak for myself, as does most everyone else on the
Internet. And no, my viewpoint is not that the position that helmets
save lives is based on hearsay, susperstition and ignorance. My viewpoint
is that the spurious hype which you attempted to pass off as "fact" has no
foundation in reality; and you're more than welcome to quote me on that.
Neither I, my company, nor any of it's clients have any financial
interest whatsoever in either side of this ridiculous debate; and just
to set the record straight, I personally always wear a helmet. My
reponse has nothing to do with the issue itself; rather I was addressing
the ludicrous posturing and blatant absence of any credible statistics
which your post displayed, and which typifies nearly every post on this
subject. Individuals on both sides of this argument are allowing their
mouths to write checks that their statistics can't cash; my contention is
simply that you should either put up or shut up.
RES
Disclaimer For The Clueless: The views expressed in this and all previous
posts are those of the author, and in no way reflect the opinions or
policies of the employer through who's account they are posted.
Bastian Wimmer
kpm...@netcom.com says...
>
>O.K., you're on; post the citations for the research
>which supports these so-called "facts", including the
>statistical sampling methods used, the qualifications of
>the individuals or organizations responsible for
>collecting this information, corroborating studies,
>and dates performed. When you've proven that your
>position is based on more than hearsay, superstition and
>ignorance, we'll debate the relative merit of the actual
>data upon which you've made these assertions.
>
>RES
>KPMG Peat Marwick |
Los Angeles
>Information Services |
California, U.S.A.
Wow. You found me out. The information that I earlier
rashly called *facts* is, indeed, based on hearsay:
from the pages of Cycling Science and Bicycling
magazines, and from publications of the Snell
Foundation and the Safety Equipment Institute (SEI).
With hindsight I should have said *statistics*
instead of *facts*. I apologize -- and agree that
statistics can be used or mis-used to prove or
disprove a lot of things. With foresight, though, my
so-called *facts* have enough of the ring of truth to
convince me that I should wear a helmet when I get on my
bike. You do what you please.
Now, allow me to ask you some questions in return. Is
*Peat* your first name and *Marwick* your last? Or might
you have something in common with the Advertising and PR
Agency of a similar name? And if so, are you putting your
company on record against bicycle helmets? Is it the
official viewpoint of KPMG Peat Marwick Information
Services that the position that helmets save lives is
based on *hearsay, superstition and ignorance*? May I
quote you? And may we know if you -- and/or any of your
clients -- have a financial stake in the issue? (Sorry,
but I had to ask since everyone who speaks in favor of
helmets is immediately accused of being a paid stooge of
the helmet industry).
Thanks,
Bastian Wimmer
ima...@pop03.ny.us.ibm.netIn article
Florin Feldman
>I apologize -- and agree that
>statistics can be used or mis-used to prove or
>disprove a lot of things.
Congratulations, you've finally said something that is right!!!
>With foresight, though, my
>so-called *facts* have enough of the ring of truth to
>convince me that I should wear a helmet when I get on my
>bike. You do what you please.
Great attitude, now take the general advice of the group
and let's all drop the whole subject.
>Now, allow me to ask you some questions in return. Is
>*Peat* your first name and *Marwick* your last? Or might
>you have something in common with the Advertising and PR
>Agency of a similar name?
Awww, geee, now you're back to "stupid" mode.............
It's not an advertising and PR company, it's accounting and
management consulting.......I guess your knowledge of
business is about as accurate as your "statistics"......
>And if so, are you putting your
>company on record against bicycle helmets? Is it the
>official viewpoint of KPMG Peat Marwick Information
>Services that the position that helmets save lives is
>based on *hearsay, superstition and ignorance*? May I
>quote you? And may we know if you -- and/or any of your
>clients -- have a financial stake in the issue?
And now you add "plain silly" and "mean spirited"
to your "stupid" mode..........
Oh well, I guess it was too much to hope for, a little
peace in this ridiculous debate.....
Florin
Bastian Wimmer
Wolfgan...@gmd.de says...
>
>
>So please spare us preprosterous remarks like the
one above. Thanks.
>
Man traegt also wieder Brett vorm Kopf?
Bastian Wimmer
<3v9akp$k...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
gre...@umich.edu says...
>
>Bastian Wimmer (ima...@pop03.ny.us.ibm.net) wrote:
>
>:Fact 3: Three fourths of these deaths could be
>: avoided with bicycling helmets.
>
>#3 isn't a fact. There are lots of badly done and
>biased articles in various publications which make
>various claims to this effect, or its opposite.
>There is ALSO good quality, well-done medical
>research in reputable, peer-reviewed journals.
>Bottom line: helmets probably can prevent about 1/3
>of deaths and 2/3 of serious head injuries (bad
>enough to require neurosurgery or to leave
>permanent disability such as seizures or movement
>disorders).
>
Thanks for the correction. I have no problem
accepting your figures. And, IMHO, they still amount
to a very powerful argument -- not for mandatory
helmet laws, not for giving *ulcers to an entire
newsgroup*, but for me to wear my helmet when I go
biking tomorrow morning.
Best,
Bestian Wimmer
ima...@pop03.ny.us.ibm.net
Lee Albert Green MD MPH
Not this again.
Bastian Wimmer (ima...@pop03.ny.us.ibm.net) wrote:
: and fancies. Fact 1: In the United States, over 900
: cyclists are fatally injured every year. Fact 2:
: Almost 80% of these die of head injuries. Fact 3:
: Three fourths of these deaths could be avoided with
: bicycling helmets. End of argument. Let's debate
: these facts, not each other.
#3 isn't a fact. There are lots of badly done and biased articles in
various publications which make various claims to this effect, or its
opposite. There is ALSO good quality, well-done medical research in
reputable, peer-reviewed journals. Several methods have been used, and
all converge at about the same numbers in *reputable* scientific work (not
advocacy publications!).
Bottom line: helmets probably can prevent about 1/3 of deaths and 2/3 of
serious head injuries (bad enough to require neurosurgery or to leave
permanent disability such as seizures or movement disorders).
We have no idea what fraction of lesser injuries they might prevent,
because no reasonable denominator can be established for exposure.
Baseline risk for death by head injury among serious cyclists is
somewhere in the one to two per thousand range. Helmets make a
significant reduction in a risk which is not very great to begin with;
i.e., a large relative risk reduction but a small absolute risk reduction.
Do I wear one? Yes. It's cheap, easy to do, and even a low risk of
ending up sitting in a nursing home drooling on myself is something I'd
prefer to reduce. Do the data justify haranguing those who choose
otherwise? Not IMO. So chill, already, before I end up having to treat
the entire newsgroup for ulcers!! ;-)
--
Lee Green MD MPH
Dept Family Practice
University of Michigan
gre...@umich.edu
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6
mQA/Ai8httwAAAEBgLIu//t4J2W5K2cP6aHpXnZUeyVfzz85b3MXMfSsjrbcbB2k
0wnI/33ZENZ8jc7fBQARAQABtCBMZWUgR3JlZW4gTUQgPGdyZWVubGFAdW1pY2gu
ZWR1Pg==
=g15t
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Gerry Hildebrand
Deleted...
>My personal hypothesis is as follows:
>
>a) we see a statistical artefact here. Bicyclists, just like other
>people who attend in traffic, get head injuries, with a certain, small
>risk. The majority never gets hurt, at least not severe, and so sees
>no reason to change their behaviour. But those who get hurt and scared
>seek for explainations. They often reject the simple and obvious
>explaination: it was just by chance, or: it was because I took a risk
>which could have taken. People don't like such explainations. So the
>seek for a symbol for what went wrong. The missing helmet fits that
>role perfectly.
>
>b) There is a major difference in the risk perception between
>motorists and cyclists. The risk of the motorist is taken for granted,
>the risk of the bicyclist isn't, even if it is smaller (I've yet to
>see a good explaination for that observation). Sometimes that double
>standard is extreme, for example if newspapers report accidents in
>their "police report" column: car drove against wall, driver gets head
>injury and dies in hospital, bicyclist gets run over by a car and
>becomes paraplegic. They never fail to mention "he wasn't wearing a
>helmet!". Who? The bicyclist, of course!
I use to work with the Edmonton police and at accidents the police would
ask if the persons involved were wearing seat belt. Then later the
statistics would be person uninjured in accident was wearing seat belt.
Only no one would have been injured with or without seat belts.
Conclusion if you want the statistic to work just ask the right question.
--
Ride for life. Be active. Request bike lanes. Write your local politician.
ai...@freenet.toronto.on.ca or bw...@freenet.carleton.ca --- __o - __o
Gerry Hildebrand from Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada ---- _`\<,_ --_`\<,_
Remember be good to each other:) ----- (*)/ (*) --(*)/ (*)
Tomasz Barczyk
>>
>
>>
>> Fact 3:
>>>Three fourths of these deaths could be avoided with
>>>bicycling helmets.
>>
> the case.
>
> hemisphere, they're cycling upside down. I was
> referring to statistical information collected in the
> United States.
>
> Best,
> Bastian Wimmer
>
This is a very good example of total discharge the experimental
data.
Yes, helmet may help in some cases.
Yes, statistically it's benefit is negligible,
Yes, it is a HUGE market, worth targetting.
Tom Barczyk
Jeff M Younker
>pretend that an inch of styrofoam can withstand a 25 mph
>collision with a front fender.
The fact is that styrofoam can't withstand a 25 mph imact. It deforms
and in the process it absorbs a LARGE amount of energy. Easily enough
energy to prevent your head from cracking like a melon. Anybody with a
semester of physics should be able to calculate this for you.
Now I'm going to rant a little, and recount some events that I know
are not urban legends.
Personally, I hit a curb at about 25 mph with my *head*. When I hit I
flipped into the air and landed on my feet. I stamped around cussing
for a while, and then picked up my yamaha and drove home. That inch of
styrofoam is the only reason that I'm alive.
I watched a girlfriend broadside a car on her bicycle. She went over the
handlebars and hit the car with the crown of her head. It wasn't 25 mph,
but it was enough that she would have been in the hospital if not for that
inch of styrofoam.
I'm against mandatory helmet laws. If you're stupid enough not to wear a
helmet, you deserve to be eliminated from the gene pool.
- Jeff Younker - je...@math.uh.edu - These are my opinions, not UH's -
jim frost
>Especially when they can sell that 1/2 in. of foam for $99.50!!
>Ever notice how the biggest promotors of he3lmet wearing
>are bike shop owners???!
Oh please; you can get a decent helmet for less than $30.
The helmet manufacturers aren't all out to suck your blood. Most of
them offer extremely affordable helmets in addition to the far more
expensive fancy ones they use to fleece the fashion-conscious or offer
extra protection for the seriously insane.
I'm not affiliated with any bicycle sales organization, so this isn't
a sales pitch. I don't care whether or not you wear a helmet, either,
it's your head. When I was a roadie I never wore one; I didn't see
the need. In the woods, though, I find myself falling on my head a
lot :-).
jim frost
ji...@world.std.com
--
http://world.std.com/~jimf
Warren Block
: Personally, I hit a curb at about 25 mph with my *head*. When I hit I
: flipped into the air and landed on my feet. I stamped around cussing
: for a while, and then picked up my yamaha and drove home. That inch of
: styrofoam is the only reason that I'm alive.
I was hit by a car while riding, but the bumper hit the left pedal and
crankarm, so most of the force was transferred right into the bike's
frame. It went one way, and I went into the air, landing on concrete on
the back of my head and my right shoulder. My shoulder blade shattered,
which shows that there was definitely enough force to break a thick,
strong, bone, and certainly enough to break a skull. However, there was
no injury to my head, and in fact it didn't occur to me to look at my
helmet until the next day (trying to forget the pain of my broken
shoulder). The foam inside on the back of the helmet was crushed and
ripped...it had done exactly what it was supposed to, and without it, I'd
have been dead.
Today, I won't ride a bike around the block without a helmet.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
| Warren R. Block * Email to: wbl...@silver.sdsmt.edu |
| Rapid City SD USA * Brought to you in majestic INEMASCOP! |
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas H. Kunich
Lee Albert Green MD MPH <gre...@umich.edu> wrote:
>Bottom line: helmets probably can prevent about 1/3 of deaths and 2/3 of
>serious head injuries (bad enough to require neurosurgery or to leave
>permanent disability such as seizures or movement disorders).
Studies always seem to misss the reality, don't they? Helmet laws
for motorcyclists and bicyclists have succeeded in reducing fatalities
through the same avenue -- decreased ridership.
Of course those stupid fools in Great Britain actually looked at the
facts and then their silly medical community decided that the reduction
in ridership decreased public health much more than the non-existant
savings in life from the non-existant increased safety from wearing
safety helmets.
Thomas H. Kunich
Bastian Wimmer <ima...@pop03.ny.us.ibm.net> wrote:
>Thanks for the correction. I have no problem
>accepting your figures. And, IMHO, they still amount
>to a very powerful argument -- not for mandatory
>helmet laws, not for giving *ulcers to an entire
>newsgroup*, but for me to wear my helmet when I go
>biking tomorrow morning.
Dastian, the point isn't to talk you out of wearing a helmet. I
wear a helmet. But the major causes of fatalities are overpoweringly
against a helmet offering any protection.
Wear your helmet. I bought my stepdaughters helmets and insist that
they wear them. But I insist more that they ride in such a manner that
they aren't relying on them for anything but that occassional silly
accident.
Steve Gordon
rides FORCE you to wear a helmet to participate.
I've been riding for over 40 years, and I think I've
earned the right to make my own decision.
P.S. Please don't give me the BS that "our insurance
requires us"....... Crap!!!
--
"See you on the road!"
Steve Gordon
> Could it be that they're on to something? Nah, not when we can
> pretend that an inch of styrofoam can withstand a 25 mph
> collision with a front fender.
>
Ever notice how the biggest promotors of he3lmet wearing
are bike shop owners???!
Lee Albert Green MD MPH
: In article <3v9akp$k...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
: Lee Albert Green MD MPH <gre...@umich.edu> wrote:
: >Bottom line: helmets probably can prevent about 1/3 of deaths and 2/3 of
: >serious head injuries (bad enough to require neurosurgery or to leave
: >permanent disability such as seizures or movement disorders).
: Studies always seem to misss the reality, don't they? Helmet laws
: for motorcyclists and bicyclists have succeeded in reducing fatalities
: through the same avenue -- decreased ridership.
I'm sorry, but this is simply false. The studies in question were
case-controls. That is, the answer they returned is likelihood of injury
PER HOUR EXPOSED, not per population which may or may not ride bicycles.
Whether mandatory helmet laws reduce ridership is another subject. My
suspicion is that they probably do, but mostly by reducing the number of
the least skilled and least committed riders. Of course this group is
the most likely to have accidents. But this is still a different
question from whether and how much helmet use reduces an *individual's*
risk of injury. The data demonstrate that they do, to the modest extent
previously posted.
At the risk of being redundant (but because so many seem to flame before
reading), PLEASE read my post carefully. I did not, do not, and will not
advocate helmet laws. I am commenting on the data about protection
afforded to *individuals* who choose to wear helmets, NOT about helmet
laws. Helmet laws are a value judgment; helmet effectiveness is data.
Some who evaluate that data conclude that the modest but definite risk
reduction justifies requiring people to wear them, others feel that that
is too great an intrusion on personal liberty for such a modest risk
reduction and consequently limited impact on the public. That value
judgment is strongly made one way or the other by many people, who tend
to fall prey to the temptation to fudge the data to make their case
stronger. Please do not do so.
kre...@glenayre.com
>I'm against mandatory helmet laws. If you're stupid enough not to wear a
>helmet, you deserve to be eliminated from the gene pool.
>
Oh, how original.
MIS Dept RW Smith
writes:
How do you wash your hair with a helmet on?
Thomas H. Kunich
Denis McGurin <DM2...@american.edu> wrote:
> OK, make your own decision. It is your head.
My this is big of you.
>However, the leader
>of a ride has a right to make the rules for his/her ride.
No they do not. They may only exercise club policy. They may not invent
requirements as they wish. Furthermnore they may not restrict riders
from riding on the same road and along the same route as theirselves.
>Further,
>the club insurance probably does require them to require helmets.
Yes indeed, I'm sure that there is some totally stupid insurance company
out there that believes that they can dictate what is safe and what
isn't. Lead me to them! What standards to they require for helmets and
what ride leader checks these standards? Are 'hair nets' legal under this
definition? Yes, I'm quite sure that there are thousands of insurance
companies out there that want to open that can of worms.
Most of these ignorant policies are dictated by AGENTS who are making
false claims about their policies. Read your policy and be suprised.
>Unfortunately, we have become an extremely litigous society. While
>you may not sue the club, your legal guardian/heirs might. The
>insurance companies figure that helmets reduce injury/death and so
>reduce their exposure to paying.
None of which is changed whether you wear a helmet or not. The legal
question is whether or not a group of people riding on public roads
can be considered liable for the actions of one of themselves who
is there of his own free will.
The club needs the insurance to
>keep from being wiped out in a suit.
Quite the opposite, it is the presence of insurance that leads to most
of these types of law suits. Clubs have no money unless insurance can
supply it.
Whether either the club or you thinks
>the helmets offer any protection is irrelevant. You're both at the
>mercy of the insurance company in this situation.
#Excuse me, but the problem is your lack of guts to face the insurance
company down. It is very simple -- either they supply insurance or
they don't. If they do they do so at your terms, not theirs. There isn't
a bicycle club in this country that needs "ride" insurance. Simply
incorporate and as long as the board of directors doesn't allow
rides purposely designed to injure people you won't have any problems.
If there's a law suit just hire a lawyer with the available funds and
close the club if that's exceeded. Start a club under a new name
whenever you like. Incorporate as a non-profit association and
carry on. Or don't form a new club. Just everyone meet as before
and do whatever you were doing. It's a free country and the roads are
free.
> You can also make another decision if wearing a helmet bothers you,
>don't go on the club's rides. No one makes you go on them.
This is quite correct and the area clubs who demand helmets are now
complaining that membership is down. Screw them.
> IMHO and IME helmets offer tremendous protection. Example: When I was hit
>a tractor trailer while I was going 25-30mph and my roadrash was worse
>than my headache I was damn glad I wore that Bell Biker helmet and awfully
>sad I had to throw it away because of that LARGE crack in the shell.
Last year one of our elder members missed a driveway and hit a curb
dead-on. He went over the bars and landed squarely on his face. The
front edge of the helmet was broken. It has now become club mythology
that he was "saved by his helmet". Both that event and yours bear a
striking resemblemce -- neither can be used to understand what "might
have" happened.
Thomas H. Kunich
Lee Albert Green MD MPH <gre...@umich.edu> wrote:
>I'm sorry, but this is simply false. The studies in question were
>case-controls. That is, the answer they returned is likelihood of injury
>PER HOUR EXPOSED, not per population which may or may not ride bicycles.
Dr. Green, we seem to have this argument every couple of months. How do
these studies estimate riders, mileage and TIME EXPOSED in a reliable
manner? Everything I've read shows from pretty crude 'guestimations'.
Even worse, I've heard one statistition say that a _single_ event was
data enough to extrapolate!
>Whether mandatory helmet laws reduce ridership is another subject. My
>suspicion is that they probably do, but mostly by reducing the number of
>the least skilled and least committed riders.
The very fact that you recognize that should also clue you in to the
further fact that a _lot_ of riders could stop riding without there
being significant changes in the statistics.
Child use of bicycles in California has dropped so drastically that
it is noticeable to almost any bike rider. Moreover, articles quoting
bogus studies have appeared in the newpaper touting great reductions
in head injuries due to the helmet laws for children.
Now add to this that most of the "low riders" (that catagory of custom
bicycle builders that haven't been chased off -- yet) don't wear helmets
and that any time now I expect to see some study saying that 97% or all
children with head injuries on bicycles were riding sans helmets.
Believe me, I understand that as a physician you should be concerned about
the physical well being of your patients. I only argue this with you
because I also think that it is up to the rest of us to strike the
balance with reality.
Wolfgang Strobl
>My choice is I won't even go around the block without a helmet. Do whatever
>you want.
You really wear a helmet while walking around the block? Great.
--
o ( Wolfgan...@gmd.de (+49 2241) 14-2394
/\ * GMD mbH #include
_`\ `_<=== Schloss Birlinghoven, <std.disclaimer>
__(_)/_(_)___.-._ 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany ________________
Robert Emmons
>
>>I'm against mandatory helmet laws. If you're stupid enough
not to wear a
>>helmet, you deserve to be eliminated from the gene pool.
>>
>
If there are no helmet laws, no one wears helmets. If you doubt
this, just go to a state or country which has no helmet law and
count helmets.
--
Robert Emmons When you believe things without proof
CalcShop Inc. you're in danger of believing almost
rem...@interramp.com anything.
jim frost
>If there are no helmet laws, no one wears helmets. If you doubt
>this, just go to a state or country which has no helmet law and
>count helmets.
This is not true. There are no helmet laws in the majority of the US
yet there are still a lot of people who ride with them. I do, for
instance.
I would probably agree that *fewer* people use them, although I
haven't been anywhere with a MHL so I'm not sure.
Marina Waltz
>>Jeff M Younker <jeff> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm against mandatory helmet laws. If you're stupid enough
>not to wear a
>>>helmet, you deserve to be eliminated from the gene pool.
>
>this, just go to a state or country which has no helmet law and
>count helmets.
Actually, that's not so. There isn't currently a helmet law
here, but I see far more cyclists, including children, with
helmets than without. (Before I get roasted, please note that I
said "I see more" and not "there are more". I have no idea what
the actual stats are.)
Regards,
Marina
Robert S. Fourney
Robert Emmons <rem...@interramp.com> wrote:
>
>If there are no helmet laws, no one wears helmets. If you doubt
>this, just go to a state or country which has no helmet law and
>count helmets.
>
Nope, I rode in Maryland when we were between lid laws and almost
always wore my full face, as did a lot of other riders and passengers.
>--
>Robert Emmons When you believe things without proof
>CalcShop Inc. you're in danger of believing almost
>rem...@interramp.com anything.
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Irony, or bait? I have a mother, I have a wife, I don't need Uncle sam to
tell me how I should dress every morning.
Bob Fourney
Benjamin Justin Cain
: The fact is that styrofoam can't withstand a 25 mph imact. It deforms
: and in the process it absorbs a LARGE amount of energy. Easily enough
: energy to prevent your head from cracking like a melon. Anybody with a
: semester of physics should be able to calculate this for you.
Well that's interesting. I didn't learn anything about the general
potential scattering problem until I was a senior in physics.
--
Ben
1992 FJ1200 "The Bushwacker" DoD # 1/137
Benjamin Justin Cain
: If there are no helmet laws, no one wears helmets. If you doubt
: this, just go to a state or country which has no helmet law and
: count helmets.
Maybe we *should* do away with the helmet laws then. After all, if we
have to be told by the law to wear helmets, what exactly are we
protecting by wearing them?
Steve Gordon
> I'm against mandatory helmet laws. If you're stupid enough not to wear a
> helmet, you deserve to be eliminated from the gene pool.
>
>
That is EXACTLY my point. I am old enough to make
my own decisions. A lot of officious snots REQUIRE me to wear a helmet using the
"it's in our insurance coverage" horse-****.!
Sara Easler P180
In article <173EDEAD5S...@american.edu>, DM2...@american.edu
(Denis McGurin) writes:
[snip]
|> The Plaintiffs can also take the leader to court, and riders on the ride.
|> This is more likely if the club is not incorporated, or has no insurance.
^^^^ ^^^^^^
Excuse me? What do you base this conclusion on? IMABHO, a lawsuit would
be more likely with insurance. Suing a nameless, faceless insurance company
with seemingly unlimited funds is a lot more attractive than suing an
individual with relatively limited funds, especially a fellow cyclist.
|> My view on the club insurance question is this: I won't lead a ride or go
|> on a ride of any club that doesn't provide insurance.
We have lots of lawyers, doctors and fairly wealthy individuals in our
club. I can understand why they are afraid and did not raise much fuss
when they insisted on club insurance. I consider it a little like buying
"insurance" from the judicial mob though, just short of extortion.
But this is a topic for a different news group.
Sara
Sara Easler
In article <173EE6FC5S...@american.edu>, DM2...@american.edu
(Denis McGurin) writes:
[snip]
|> Walking/running - no helmet
|> Driving - no helmet
If you're stupid enough not to wear a helmet, you deserve to be
eliminated from the gene pool.
Sara
Robert Emmons
hou...@news-server.engin.umich.edu says...
>
>I don't know where you're from, but maybe *you* should go to a
state
>that has no helmet law. There is no such law here in Arizona,
but I
>still see more bikers with helmets than without.
>
>--Dan
Oh! Testy! I certainly wouldn't wish death on you. You don't
even know if I favor or oppose helmets or helmet laws.
Robert S. Fourney
Robert Emmons <rem...@interramp.com> wrote:
>In article <3voocs$q...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>,
>Oh! Testy! I certainly wouldn't wish death on you. You don't
>even know if I favor or oppose helmets or helmet laws.
>
Look bobby, nobody wished death on you. You spouted some
bulsh*t "facts" and told us to go look. Folks who live in non
helmet law states, and folks like myself who have lived and ridden
in both types pointed out that you could not have been more wrong.
Instead of admitting that you are full of doo-doo, you say that
your detractors are "testy" and are wiching you death (no idea wherer
you got that one from!). In another post you said that all the helmet
wearers in AZ were passing through from another state! AZ is not the type
of place you "pass through" in August if you can help it. If they are
passing through nothing prevents them from removing their (note spelling)
helmets once in AZ. You were wrong, you are still wrong, you are becoming
annoying by continuing to spout your wrongness.
Bob Fourney
mas...@ibm.net
>In article <3voocs$q...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>,
>hou...@news-server.engin.umich.edu says...
>>
>>I don't know where you're from, but maybe *you* should go to a
>state
>>that has no helmet law. There is no such law here in Arizona,
>but I
>>still see more bikers with helmets than without.
>>
>>--Dan
>
>even know if I favor or oppose helmets or helmet laws.
Speaking of testy... Dan, as far as I can tell, was not
wishing death on your or any such thing. He seemed to
pointing out the fallacy of your argument.
Whether or not you oppose or favor helmet laws has nothing
to do with the truth of your statement (or, in this case,
lack of).
Mike Stewart '84 Honda Sabre
mas...@ibm.net DOD #1734
Robert Emmons
dr_...@ix.netcom.com says...
>What???!!! We don't have a helmet law in Arizona and damn near
everybody I see
>going down the road on a bike is wearing one, except the Harley
riders, and
>even that's not 100%. It was 110 degrees out today and today
was no exception.
> I ride with a lid, but I'm against a helmet law too.
>
There probably just passing through from states with helmet
mas...@ibm.net
>There probably just passing through from states with helmet
>laws.
Is this bait, or would a person really risk looking ridiculous
to defend a point? Tom, John, you been hacking again?
131AA0000-RogersC(DR8926)273
>Robert Emmons (rem...@interramp.com) wrote:
>
>: If there are no helmet laws, no one wears helmets. If you doubt
>: this, just go to a state or country which has no helmet law and
>: count helmets.
>
>Maybe we *should* do away with the helmet laws then. After all, if we
>have to be told by the law to wear helmets, what exactly are we
>protecting by wearing them?
Robert's statement is incorrect. The Hurt Study counted the helmets
and riders in a no-helmet-law-state and found that 50% of street riders
wore them anyway without coercion.
Chuck Rogers
DoD #0003 KotSBS
Honourary Brit #002
car...@dr.att.com
--
Mike Fleming
rem...@interramp.com "Robert Emmons" writes:
> If there are no helmet laws, no one wears helmets. If you doubt
> this, just go to a state or country which has no helmet law and
> count helmets.
In the UK, before the introduction of mandatory helmets, 88% of
motorcyclists wore them anyway.
--
Mike (DF) Fleming MAG #79794 DoD #4446 Greenpeace #567708F
JKLO #004
dr rags
>
>>Jeff M Younker <jeff> wrote:
>>
>>>helmet, you deserve to be eliminated from the gene pool.
>>>
>>
>
>this, just go to a state or country which has no helmet law and
>count helmets.
>
>--
>Robert Emmons When you believe things without proof
>CalcShop Inc. you're in danger of believing almost
>rem...@interramp.com anything.
>
What???!!! We don't have a helmet law in Arizona and damn near everybody I see
going down the road on a bike is wearing one, except the Harley riders, and
even that's not 100%. It was 110 degrees out today and today was no exception.
I ride with a lid, but I'm against a helmet law too.
--
;-------------------------------
; Dr_...@ix.netcom.com
; "Only two things are infinite, the universe and
; human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
; Albert Einstein
;-------------------------------
Robert Burnham
cyclists: experienced adult riders, casual adult riders, and kids. These
populations differ in knowledge of cycling and safety, and the law should
reflect this.
1. Experienced adult riders know enough to make an informed decision
about helmets and should have the freedom to choose not to wear one. (If
liberty and freedom mean anything, they have to include the freedom to
make stupid choices.)
2. Casual adult riders may or may not be knowledgeable, but in
practice many or most will probably err on the side of caution and choose
to wear one. When 30-year-olds mount their first bike in 15 years, they
have a lot of anxiety to deal with; helmets help. (But here again we're
dealing with adults who should have freedom of choice. And for the
helmetless newbie, perhaps roadrash or a bonk on the head will help the
learning curve.)
3. Kids below the age of vehicular majority (let's say 16 years)
should be required to wear them.
The problem, at bottom, is perceptual: adults can see (or learn to see)
bicycles as vehicles and behave accordingly on the road. But most kids
and their parents see bikes as toys. Anyone with ideas on how to break
this impasse?
Robert Burnham
Lee Albert Green MD MPH
: Lee Albert Green MD MPH <gre...@umich.edu> wrote:
: >I'm sorry, but this is simply false. The studies in question were
: >case-controls. That is, the answer they returned is likelihood of injury
: >PER HOUR EXPOSED, not per population which may or may not ride bicycles.
: Dr. Green, we seem to have this argument every couple of months. How do
: these studies estimate riders, mileage and TIME EXPOSED in a reliable
: manner? Everything I've read shows from pretty crude 'guestimations'.
The studies use several methods. There are case-controls, in which
riders are matched on various characteristics and injury severities
compared. These studies only see the people who get hurt of course,
which is why the only reliable data is on severe injuries and deaths, not
on minor injuries. Cohort studies are what you refer to, which use what
you term "guestimations". Your term is pejorative, however, and shows no
understanding of the sophistication of this sort of research. The
researchers are NOT making wild-ass guesses about exposure; they use
multiple methods and check their reliability against one another quite
carefully.
The most telling point though is that the studies replicate reliably, and
well-done studies of all methods used so far in reputable peer-reviewed
journals all converge on the same result. That's the benchmark of
reliability in science.
: Even worse, I've heard one statistition say that a _single_ event was
: data enough to extrapolate!
"Worse"? It may seem so if you've not studied statistics, but there are
indeed situations in which that statement is true. Very few of them, but
they exist. However, that's completely irrelevant here. The studies
in question are not based on "one" or even a few injuries. They're based
on hundreds or thousands of injuries.
: >Whether mandatory helmet laws reduce ridership is another subject. My
: >suspicion is that they probably do, but mostly by reducing the number of
: >the least skilled and least committed riders.
: The very fact that you recognize that should also clue you in to the
: further fact that a _lot_ of riders could stop riding without there
: being significant changes in the statistics.
Untrue, and again a misunderstanding of statistics. Whether most or a
minority of riders in the population wear helmets makes *no difference
whatever* in the RELATIVE risk. An individual's odds of death with
helmet are 2/3 of those without, of serious brain injury 1/3 of without.
The ABSOLUTE risk depends on how many people get into accidents where
they might be injured, i.e. the prevalence. If you have a population of
klutzes the absolute risk might be 6/1000 per year, vs. a typical
population of club cyclists which will be under 1/1000 per year. How
many people helmets can save is a function of relative risk reduction and
prevalence. Helmets prevent 1/3 of deaths, hence in the population of
klutzes they will prevent 2 deaths per 1000 per year if everyone wears
them, or 1 per 1000 per year if half the people wear them.
: Child use of bicycles in California has dropped so drastically that
: it is noticeable to almost any bike rider. Moreover, articles quoting
: bogus studies have appeared in the newpaper touting great reductions
: in head injuries due to the helmet laws for children.
I'm sure they have. But 1) helmet laws are a value judgment, and I'm
discussing helmet effectiveness not what you choose to do based on that
data (laws or no), and 2) newspapers are not my idea of the peer-reviewed
responsible medical literature.
: Now add to this that most of the "low riders" (that catagory of custom
: bicycle builders that haven't been chased off -- yet) don't wear helmets
: and that any time now I expect to see some study saying that 97% or all
: children with head injuries on bicycles were riding sans helmets.
But that is exactly the kind of study which would appear in the advocacy
press, NOT in the peer-reviewed literature. It doesn't tell me anything
to know what fraction of injured didn't wear helmets. It tells me
something to compare the degree of head injuries among helmeted and
unhelmeted riders who crash. If you don't understand this crucial
denominator issue, and why one study is bogus and the other reliable,
Streiner et al.'s "PDQ Epidemiology" is a very readable introduction to
the subject.
: Believe me, I understand that as a physician you should be concerned about
: the physical well being of your patients. I only argue this with you
: because I also think that it is up to the rest of us to strike the
: balance with reality.
The "rest of us"? I did not surrender my hold on reality when I took up
the practice of medicine, Mr. Kunich. I don't tell my patients what to
do, I tell them the facts (helmets are modestly effective, more than the
strident anti's want to admit and less than the strident pro's want to
claim), and let them make their own decision.
I would suggest that if you really want to strike a balance with reality,
you begin with some basic statistics and epidemiology, and with a clearer
distinction between the data and the value judgments people make based on
what those data mean to them. "2 per thousand per year" is data. "That's
too many, we should have a law" vs. "that's not many, keep your laws off
my head" is value judgment.
Craig West
: Robert Emmons (rem...@interramp.com) wrote:
: : >Jeff M Younker <jeff> wrote:
: : >
: : >>I'm against mandatory helmet laws. If you're stupid enough
: : not to wear a
: : >>helmet, you deserve to be eliminated from the gene pool.
: : >>
: : >
:
: : If there are no helmet laws, no one wears helmets. If you doubt
: : this, just go to a state or country which has no helmet law and
: : count helmets.
:
: : --
: : Robert Emmons When you believe things without proof
: : CalcShop Inc. you're in danger of believing almost
: : rem...@interramp.com anything.
: I don't know where you're from, but maybe *you* should go to a state
: that has no helmet law. There is no such law here in Arizona, but I
: still see more bikers with helmets than without.
:
: --Dan
Robert's point is a lot clearer if you notice that this is cross-
posted from rec.bicicycles.misc. Most states don't have helmet laws for
bicycles, but do for motorcycles...
--
Craig West DoD#1748 Ph: (905) 821-8300 |1978 Honda CB750K Big Black Beast
Pulse Microsystems Fx: (905) 821-7331 |1975 Honda CB360T (RIP)
2660 Meadowvale Blvd, Unit #10 |1967 Kawasaki 250A1 Work in progress
Mississauga, Ontario, CANADA L5N 6M6 |cr...@pulsemicro.com
Robert S. Fourney
>In <3vqe9d$3...@usenet1.interramp.com>, rem...@interramp.com (Robert Emmons) writes:
>>Oh! Testy! I certainly wouldn't wish death on you. You don't
>>even know if I favor or oppose helmets or helmet laws.
>
>Speaking of testy... Dan, as far as I can tell, was not
>wishing death on your or any such thing. He seemed to
>pointing out the fallacy of your argument.
>
>Whether or not you oppose or favor helmet laws has nothing
>to do with the truth of your statement (or, in this case,
>lack of).
>
Lack of statement or lack of truth? (Bobby lacked both, but I
wondered which you meant)
Bob Fourney
R.D. Auchterlounie
[...]
>The studies use several methods. There are case-controls, in which
>riders are matched on various characteristics and injury severities
>compared. These studies only see the people who get hurt of course,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In which case they cannot possibly measure helmet efficacy.
They provide data on the benefits of helmets
_in a serious injury accident_ and that is _all_ they show.
They cannot possibly show reduction in risk per hour of cycling
because they haven't measured it.
In probability terms you want probability of death (or serious head
injury) per hour (or km) conditional on wearing and not wearing helmets.
BUT if you only look at accident victims you have measured those
probabilities conditional on having a serious injury accident.
ie. You want: P( death | helmet ) and P( death | no helmet )
But You have: P( death | helmet, serious injury accident )
and P( death | helmet, serious injury accident )
It doesn't take much stats knowledge to know that you can't equate
P(x|y) and P(x|y,z).
[...]
>The most telling point though is that the studies replicate reliably, and
>well-done studies of all methods used so far in reputable peer-reviewed
>journals all converge on the same result. That's the benchmark of
>reliability in science.
Personally I dont dispute the results, the argument is in what
conclusions can be drawn from them.
Sometimes researchers draw conclusions that are unsupported by
their data, often because (as in this case) they have neglected
some of the variables in the problem.
[...]
> An individual's odds of death with
>helmet are 2/3 of those without, of serious brain injury 1/3 of without.
This conclusion cannot be drawn solely from studies of accident
victims (as you stated above). The correct statement is:
"An individual's odds of death
--- following an accident involving serious injury --- with helmet
are 2/3 of those without, of serious brain injury 1/3 of without."
[...]
>do, I tell them the facts (helmets are modestly effective, more than the
>strident anti's want to admit and less than the strident pro's want to
>claim), and let them make their own decision.
[...]
Do you tell them that helmets are modestly effective _in an accident_
but that they may or may not improve an indiviual's overall risk
of cycling head injury / death and we don't know because we havent
measured that ?
ray
<r...@eng.cam.ac.uk>
Jeff Bernhard
: Could it be that they're on to something? Nah, not when we can
: pretend that an inch of styrofoam can withstand a 25 mph
: collision with a front fender.
:
It amazes me that I'm responding to this ... Being deliberately obtuse
seems to be pro forma in helmet war discussions -- I'm not pointing a
finger (in particular) at THK, but wonder if anyone really thinks that
a bicycle helmet is *designed* to withstand an impact with a car. The
speed variance involved is the principle issue, is it not? If your head
hits something hard at a high enough velocity, a bicycle helmet will be
of little or no help. It just so happens that some accidents in which
a head hits something hard are at lower velocities, so the helmet can
help. How often is this the case? Well, accidents involving the head
are but a small percentage of all accidents, and of those, those in
which the speed variance is low enough for the helmet to be useful is
(I think) high -- most accidents don't involve cars: The impact is
between the cyclist and the road (perhaps due to the influence of other
cyclists, but that is irrelevant for purposes of this discussion). I
hasten to add that whether anyone else chooses to use a helmet is
purely their choice, however arrived at.
--
Jeffrey Bernhard Harris Computer Systems Corp.
Jeff.B...@mail.hcsc.com Voice: (305) 973-5496 Fax: (305) 977-5580
*** The opinions expressed herein are mine, not those of my employer! ***
Chris Smolyk
and use it?
STANDARD EXCLAIMER: YO
d8^).........chriss
csm...@ums.supernet.ab.ca
chris_...@mouse.edmonton.ab.ca
csm...@supernet.ab.ca
-Diplomacy - the art of letting someone have your way.
R.D. Auchterlounie
[...]
>help. How often is this the case? Well, accidents involving the head
>are but a small percentage of all accidents, and of those, those in
>which the speed variance is low enough for the helmet to be useful is
>(I think) high -- most accidents don't involve cars: The impact is
Most cycle accidents don't involve cars -- true
BUT
Most cycle accidents don't involve serious injury (head or otherwise)
Most cycle accidents that _do_ involve serious injury or death also
involve cars.
So if you are dicussing helmets to prevent deaths or serious injury you
need to consider accidents with cars.
ray
<r...@eng.cam.ac.uk>
Tomasz Barczyk
[chop]
...energy to prevent your head from cracking like a melon. ...
It is really amazing, how the picture of the cracking melon caught up!
It was really a masterstroke of marketing (...scare them to buy...).
Tom Barczyk
Lee Albert Green MD MPH
Again, however, case-controls from the ER are not the only data we have.
Comparison studies between areas can estimate the fraction of the local
population wearing helmets (research assistants standing on streetcorners
tally samples, same as is done for seat-belt estimates). Areas of high
helmet use have lower incidences of serious neurological trauma than
those of low helmet use, and the numbers work out to about the same as
from the case-controls. However, the incidences of broken collarbones
etc. don't differ between the areas, so the "crash rates" seem to be similar.
The similarity of these results to the ER-based ones suggest what the ER
docs themselves observe: crashes serious enough to kill or maim due to
head injury are usually accompanied by other injuries significant enough
to merit treatment even if the head injury is prevented. In the probability
terms you've used, we can indeed estimate the difference between P(head
injury in serious crash|helmet) and P(head injury in serious crash|no
helmet), because the P(presentation to ER|helmet in crash) and
P(presentation to ER|no helmet in crash) appear to differ insignificantly
for those crashes severe enough to cause the deadly or disabling injuries
I've specifically limited my comments to.
Again please be clear on what's being stated here: an individual's odds
of death or serious brain injury if wearing a helmet are 1/3 and 2/3
respectively of whatever those odds are if s/he is not wearing a helmet.
That's stated as a relative risk. You can restate it as conditional
probabilities if you wish; the literature uses RRs though and I prefer
them as they're intuitively more understandable to most people (though
I'm a neo-Bayesian myself).
Lee Albert Green MD MPH
R.D. Auchterlounie (r...@eng.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: >compared. These studies only see the people who get hurt of course,
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: In which case they cannot possibly measure helmet efficacy.
: They provide data on the benefits of helmets
: _in a serious injury accident_ and that is _all_ they show.
: They cannot possibly show reduction in risk per hour of cycling
: because they haven't measured it.
One more time: the studies in question are case-controls and cohort
studies. Yes, the case-controls provide data on the benefits of helmets in
accidents significant enough to bring patients to the ER. Yes, that is
all they show and yes, that is all I've claimed they show. Are some
people in accidents which would result in a head injury, but no other
injury, and avoid the head injury because they're wearing helmets, hence
never get counted as a helmet "save"? Yes. How many? We don't know for
sure, but survey studies indicate not many in the
death-and-serious-injury category. And that is what I've been posting
about. Again and again I have emphasized that we do not have data for
less serious accidents.
: In probability terms you want probability of death (or serious head
: injury) per hour (or km) conditional on wearing and not wearing helmets.
: BUT if you only look at accident victims you have measured those
: probabilities conditional on having a serious injury accident.
: >helmet are 2/3 of those without, of serious brain injury 1/3 of without.
No, the conditional probability is what would be ideal to have. What we
can get is the relative risk, or odds ratio. It does not tell you what
the conditional probabilities are, but does tell you what the ratio of the
probabilities is. That can be applied to the prevalence to *estimate* the
absolute risk (or conditional probabilities per hour of exposure).
: This conclusion cannot be drawn solely from studies of accident
: victims (as you stated above). The correct statement is:
: "An individual's odds of death
: --- following an accident involving serious injury --- with helmet
: are 2/3 of those without, of serious brain injury 1/3 of without."
Which, if you will read my previous postings, you will discover is
exactly what I said. You've simply managed to rephrase in probabilistic
terms what is known in epidemiological terms as "relative risk". Which
is distinct from "absolute risk", as I've pointed out repeatedly.
Wolfgang Strobl
>Robert Emmons (rem...@interramp.com) wrote:
>: If there are no helmet laws, no one wears helmets. If you doubt
>: this, just go to a state or country which has no helmet law and
>: count helmets.
>Maybe we *should* do away with the helmet laws then. After all, if we
>have to be told by the law to wear helmets, what exactly are we
>protecting by wearing them?
The brainless riders need a lot more protection than normal people, of course!
Those who actually _use_ their brains instead of just packing it into styrofoam
simply avoid most risks by doing so.
Those who need a helmet in order to ride safely (or so they believe) are a
minority that tries to enforce their belief on others.
PS: never drive without wearing a helmet - your risk of getting a brain injury
while driving a car is a lot greater than while riding a bike, for average
people.
--
o ( Wolfgang Strobl Wolfgan...@gmd.de (+49 2241) 14-2394
/\ * GMD mbH
_`\ `_<=== Schloss Birlinghoven, P.O. Box 1316, | #include
__(_)/_(_)___.-._ 53731 Sankt Augustin, Germany | <std.disclaimer.hpp>
Wolfgang Strobl
> [...] "2 per thousand per year" is data. "That's
>too many, we should have a law" vs. "that's not many, keep your laws off
>my head" is value judgment.
What about "60 % of accidental deaths are caused by head/brain injuries; if we
look only at deaths in traffic, the percentage is about 70%" and "About 10 % of
all traffic and about 10 % of these 70 % are bicyclists"? Is this data, or is
this a value judgment? IMHO, it's data. If people conclude "that's not many,
..", that's of course a value judgment.
But is it justified?
Well, that's just the asking for the very same value judgment with different
words, right. But what about: the value judgment of a person driving without a
helmet is no different from the value judgment of a person riding his or her
bicycle without a helmet, wrt. the amount of risk taken?
IMHO, this is neither data nor a value judgment, but simply a thesis which can
be proven with available data.
Roserunner
>>
>> I'm against mandatory helmet laws. If you're stupid enough not to wear a
>> helmet, you deserve to be eliminated from the gene pool.
>>
>>
>
>That is EXACTLY my point. I am old enough to make
>my own decisions. A lot of officious snots REQUIRE me to wear a helmet using the
>"it's in our insurance coverage" horse-****.!
Insurance companies don't want riders to wear helmets to protect the
riders from injury. They want riders to have to wear helmets as part
of their plan to remove bikes from the roadways. Helmet laws always
result in reduced bike riding, after all. You see, making
payments to riders after their loyal cager customers slam into them
costs too much.
----
"Get your motor runnin' / Head out on the highway
Lookin' for adventure / In whatever comes our way" -Steppenwolf
rose...@noller.com -- lotsa names, lotsa numbers, lotsa kids, lotsa bikes
Chris Hime
One day while riding on a very tchnical trail, I came to a small
limestone pit. After deciding to go down into it, I realized I made a
mistake when I hit a rut and over-balanced. I then fell head over
heels (along with the bike) to anice grassy area to the right of the
downhill. Unfortunately, this grassy area contained several LARGE
rocks, which I promptly tumbled all over. To make a long story short,
I took a major impact to my head (this destroyed my helmet), my face,
chest, ride side of torso, right arm, both knees, and both calves, all
took hits as well. Also, I received bruises under both my eyes from
where my prescription glasses hit me. I walked around for two days
with a mild cuncussion and am convinced that I would have ended up in
the hospital had I not been wearing my helmet. The bike?? no damage
at all..
This was not a $99.99 Bell helmet. This was a $14.99 Walmart helmet.
Does anyone out there speak to groups of people about bicycle safety?
If so, do you need a destroyed helmet to explain why they should be
wearing one? I will send it to you for free!
Two side notes to this: 1) I did not scream as this was happening.
My two companions said they heard me crashing through the trail, then
nothing. They showed up to find me at the bottom of the pit. 2) my
boss was riding with me that day. His first reaction was "can you
work tomorrow?"
Like I said, just my $.02
Chris Hime = hi...@freenet.scri.fsu.edu
--
Thought for the day:
"Argue for your limitations, and sure enough,
they are yours."
R.D. Auchterlounie
>Again, however, case-controls from the ER are not the only data we have.
>Comparison studies between areas can estimate the fraction of the local
>population wearing helmets (research assistants standing on streetcorners
>tally samples, same as is done for seat-belt estimates). Areas of high
>helmet use have lower incidences of serious neurological trauma than
>those of low helmet use, and the numbers work out to about the same as
_Some_ areas. If I compare for example the UK and the Netherlands the
former has a death rate per km 10 times that of the latter - and also
a higher helmet wearing rate. This shows nothing about helmets other
than the fact that other factors can completely swamp the effects of
helmets.
[...]
>Again please be clear on what's being stated here: an individual's odds
>of death or serious brain injury if wearing a helmet are 1/3 and 2/3
>respectively of whatever those odds are if s/he is not wearing a helmet.
I think I have perhaps not been clear enough in my argument.
I believe that you cannot prove your statement above from studies of
accident victims (ER data) - whatever units you use.
You can prove it iff you add the qualifier "in an accident" or replace
"individual" with "accident victim".
This qualifier is IMO important, and to remove it is very misleading.
The data and results are from a sample of the cycling population - a
self-selected sample with unknown and unmeasured bias - whilst your
statement above implies that you have statistics for the population.
Perhaps we are trying to measure different things - if you are only
trying to measure helmet efficacy in an accident then that's fine,
but it's NOT fine to state that this measures helmet efficacy period,
or that these results should be used to decide whether or not to
wear one.
As the differences may be subtle/unclear to some, here's an example:
1. Rear facing seating has been proposed (at least for aircraft)
as simualtions indicate it would reduce injuries significantly.
2. Suppose that you study ER victims of car accidents, comparing
those who were driving forwards and those who were in reverse...
3. Suppose that you find (all other things being equal) that
the odds of death or serious brain injury in an accident, are
when driving in reverse 2/3 of those when driving forwards
-- given what we know about rear-facing seating this would
not be unexpected.
Does this mean that driving in reverse is 2/3 the risk of driving
forwards ?
My intuition is it would be more dangerous, but that's just a guess
- what I know is that you can't answer the question from 1-3.
(yes I know that you can't go as fast in reverse and that'll make it
safer, just assume that for arguments sake reverse is just as fast)
ray
<r...@eng.cam.ac.uk>
Dale Kleeman
>In article <3v9akp$k...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
>Lee Albert Green MD MPH <gre...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>Bottom line: helmets probably can prevent about 1/3 of deaths and 2/3 of
>>serious head injuries (bad enough to require neurosurgery or to leave
>>permanent disability such as seizures or movement disorders).
>Studies always seem to misss the reality, don't they? Helmet laws
>for motorcyclists and bicyclists have succeeded in reducing fatalities
>through the same avenue -- decreased ridership.
Where's your reality Thomas? Lee was actually talking about the effectiveness
of helmets, not helmet laws, and in fact he advocated against the helmet laws
in this post you were quoting!
>Of course those stupid fools in Great Britain actually looked at the
>facts and then their silly medical community decided that the reduction
>in ridership decreased public health much more than the non-existant
>savings in life from the non-existant increased safety from wearing
>safety helmets.
>Could it be that they're on to something? Nah, not when we can
>pretend that an inch of styrofoam can withstand a 25 mph
>collision with a front fender.
No wonder you have no idea! The helmet does not withstand the impact, all it
does is reduce the severity of the impact by its own destruction - this may or
may not save the wearer from a severe head injury. Keep in mind though what
helmets are designed for and the range of accidents that happen to cyclists
(in case you had not realised, they are not all 25mph impacts with front
fenders!).
Chris BeHanna
:>>Jeff M Younker <jeff> wrote:
:>>
:>>>helmet, you deserve to be eliminated from the gene pool.
:>>
:>If there are no helmet laws, no one wears helmets. If you doubt
^^^^^^
:>this, just go to a state or country which has no helmet law and
:>count helmets.
Counterexample #1: On my last MC trip through Ohio, I had my helmet
on the whole time.
Counterexample #2: At the most recent NECDoDSF, almost all of the
attendees had their helmets on (in New Hampshire).
As if it should make one damned bit of difference to you whether or
not someone else values their head as much as you do yours.
--
Chris BeHanna DoD# 114 KotSTA Ed Green 1975 CB360T - Baby Bike
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com Fan Club #004 1991 ZX-11 - Zexy
kore wa NEC no iken de gozaimasen. FOLMA #17 1973 RD350A - seized
Why is Lon Horiuchi still breathing? 1987 EX500 - the RaceBike
Only in America can a homeless veteran sleep in a cardboard box while a draft
dodger sleeps in the White House.
Lee Green MD MPH
Auchterlounie) wrote:
> Perhaps we are trying to measure different things - if you are only
> trying to measure helmet efficacy in an accident then that's fine,
> but it's NOT fine to state that this measures helmet efficacy period,
> or that these results should be used to decide whether or not to
> wear one.
>
> As the differences may be subtle/unclear to some, here's an example:
I'm sorry, this difference isn't subtle it's specious. Helmet efficacy in
an accident, as measured by relative risk and absolute risk, is indeed
what counts in the individual's decision to wear one or not, unless you
postulate that wearing a helmet or not somehow changes your probability of
being in an accident *given that you've decided you're going to ride the
bike either way*.
The example of cars going in reverse or forward is perfectly confused,
because forward and reverse are two different risk exposures. But a bike
crash is one kind of risk exposure, and whether the individual in the
crash wears a helmet or not (the intervention) affects their relative risk
of injury or death.
What you may be trying to get at isn't a "different" measure of efficacy,
it's the difference between efficacy and effectiveness. Efficacy is what
the helmet does to your risk of injury or death in a crash. In the
conditional probability terms you used before, P(smashed melon|crash)
measured with and without helmets. That's what the ER data measure.
Effectiveness is what happens to the smashed melon rate *in the
population* when you implement, for example, helmet laws. Since a helmet
law may in some areas affect people's decision to cycle or not, hence to
be exposed to the risk (crashing) or not, the effect of helmet laws is a
more complex issue than that of helmet efficacy.
Nonetheless, if an individual decides to ride a bike with a helmet vs.
deciding to ride without one (same risk exposure, different intervention),
the relative risk numbers properly apply.
--
Lee Green MD MPH
Jeff Bernhard
: The problem for me is that a lot of organized
: rides FORCE you to wear a helmet to participate.
: I've been riding for over 40 years, and I think I've
: earned the right to make my own decision.
: P.S. Please don't give me the BS that "our insurance
: requires us"....... Crap!!!
: --
: "See you on the road!"
Our club requires helmet use for insurance purposes -- no helmet,
no, er, coverage.
dorre, ,,
>>DM2...@american.edu (Denis McGurin) wrote:
>>>My choice is I won't even go around the block without a helmet. Do whatever
>>>you want.
> Walking/running - no helmet
> Driving - no helmet
> Rollerblading - helmet
> Cycling - helmet
> Any other conditions I need to describe? :^)
Your logic. Figures from Aus (but they'd be pretty similar everywhere
else) show death rates from head injury (ave of male+female rates) as:
per 10 million km per million hours
cycling .19 .19
walking .77 .34
Yet you are telling us you won't ride round the block without a helmet,
but you nonetheless walk round the block, exposing your head to 4 times the
risk without one!!!
Seems like a pretty silly thing to do. How do you justify it?
> Denis
Dorre
Robert Emmons
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com says...
>
> Counterexample #2: At the most recent NECDoDSF, almost
all of the
>attendees had their helmets on (in New Hampshire).
>
No doubt almost all of them came from or rode through states
that require helmets.
Chris Malcolm
>If there are no helmet laws, no one wears helmets. If you doubt
>this, just go to a state or country which has no helmet law and
>count helmets.
Ok. Here it seems about 2/3 of the cycling population wear
helmets. Logically speaking only one contrary case disproves a universal
statement, but since you're suffering from a cognitive handicap, I guess
we should ask you how many times you need to be proved wrong before you
change your mind?
--
Chris Malcolm c...@uk.ac.ed.aifh +44 (0)131 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
"The mind reigns, but does not govern" Paul Valery
Jeff Bernhard
: je...@csd.harris.com (Jeff Bernhard) writes:
: [...]
: >help. How often is this the case? Well, accidents involving the head
: >are but a small percentage of all accidents, and of those, those in
: >which the speed variance is low enough for the helmet to be useful is
: >(I think) high -- most accidents don't involve cars: The impact is
:
: Most cycle accidents don't involve cars -- true
: BUT
: Most cycle accidents don't involve serious injury (head or otherwise)
I think I made this point myself ... above ... wrt head injury, which
seems more relevant when discussing helmets.
: Most cycle accidents that _do_ involve serious injury or death also
: involve cars.
Does this mean that helmets are effective to some extent in some of the
more numerous cases not involving cars? I think even in accidents involving
cars, the possible benefit of the helmet will depend on how and with what
the head impact occurs. If I slam head-first into a windshield (windscreen?),
with significant speed variance, I'm in deep trouble. If my head does not
impact with the car, but my bike is clipped and I fall to the ground and
hit my head, some benefit from the helmet may accrue. But I realize that
a helmet is limited in the benefit it may afford.
:
: So if you are dicussing helmets to prevent deaths or serious injury you
: need to consider accidents with cars.
I'm discussing helmets to present *some* deaths or serious injuries.
I concede that helmets are not a panacea, nor have I ever claimed that
they were. We are talking about something that has arguably some marginal
effectiveness -- but not in all accidents in which one's head may impact
some surface or other. And I have no solution to prevent all deaths or
serious injury in accidents involving cars. But I don't think that is
the point at all. YMMV.
:
: ray
: <r...@eng.cam.ac.uk>
:
Mr D.M. Whittle
> je...@csd.harris.com (Jeff Bernhard) writes:
> [...]
> >help. How often is this the case? Well, accidents involving the head
> >are but a small percentage of all accidents, and of those, those in
> >which the speed variance is low enough for the helmet to be useful is
> >(I think) high -- most accidents don't involve cars: The impact is
>
> Most cycle accidents don't involve cars -- true
> BUT
> Most cycle accidents don't involve serious injury (head or otherwise)
> involve cars.
>
> need to consider accidents with cars.
>
> <r...@eng.cam.ac.uk>
>
I heard that most cycle accidents resulting in injury do NOT involve a car,
but other cyclists (Ie crashing in/due to group rides), and the next largest
bracket was lone cyclists.
Not a flame but where do you get your info-I'll check MY sources.
And accidents involving cars are the ones least likely to benefit from wearing
a helmet (ie. the benefits of wearing a helmet are greater than you might
guess).
dave
(who only wears his helmet occasionally even tho it has saved him from brain
damage. Go figure. Actually its all about perceived risks-if I intend to do
some looney mtbing involving drop-offs etc I wear my helmet, if Im going for
a gentle spin I dont. To me the PERCEIVED risks are greater, even if the stats
say Im more likely to have an accident on the road etc.)
Darren Bergen
I have yet to experience any falls, but then I don't
trail blaze yet.
About you sending the helmet to demonstrate injury..
Why don't you take a picture and place it on the Web..
Do you have Web Access. I think a sight about injuries
and the safety of helments would be interesting..
Heck it would make a great show piece on your
own home page.
Just a though, happy biking.
--
---------------------------------------------------
| Darren Bergen | I think, therefore |
| dbe...@cs.sfu.ca | I think I am. |
---------------------------------------------------
Robert Emmons
>
>Ok. Here it seems about 2/3 of the cycling population wear
>helmets. Logically speaking only one contrary case disproves a
universal
>statement, but since you're suffering from a cognitive
handicap, I guess
>we should ask you how many times you need to be proved wrong
before you
>change your mind?
>
You're right. I generalized too much. Let me put it like this.
If there are no laws forcing people in a particular geographical
area to buy helmets, few people will buy them, and fewer will
wear them. Is that clear enough for you?
Robert Emmons
>Ok. Here it seems about 2/3 of the cycling population wear
>helmets. Logically speaking only one contrary case disproves a
universal
>statement, but since you're suffering from a cognitive
handicap, I guess
>we should ask you how many times you need to be proved wrong
before you
>change your mind?
>
I'm always amazed that people will hurl personal insults at you,
just because they disagree with you on a minor point. Grow up.
Get a life.
Dave Althoff
: You're right. I generalized too much. Let me put it like this.
: If there are no laws forcing people in a particular geographical
: area to buy helmets, few people will buy them, and fewer will
: wear them. Is that clear enough for you?
Ah. Either I am living in the wrong particular geographical area, or
somehow this thread got crossposted to rec.motorcycles. Without actual
numbers to back me up (sorry...) but based on what I see on the road, a
very large proportion of the *bicycling* population in this area purchases
and wears bicycling helmets. At the same time, I see far fewer
*motor*cyclists, and it appears that a larger percentage of those riders
are helmet-less. The only helmet laws in this state are related to
motorcycles and motorized bicycles, and only affect a small portion of the
population.
So, it appears that the quoted statement may be true for motorcycles, but
is not true for bicycles. Probably because a large proportion of the
bicyclists have little concept of the probability of becoming involved in
a crash resulting in head trauma. The helmet advocates have done a really
good job of PR and getting the message out. I guess people respond well
to an alarmist approach.
For what it's worth, I--
a. Ride a bicycle (no motor.)
b. Do not own a helmet
c. Am extremely concerned with safety precautions
d. Am annoyed that well-meaning people are more concerned with plopping a
helmet on rider's heads to protect them from injury than in making sure
that the rider doesn't crash in the first place
e. Will not argue any further in this round.
: --
: Robert Emmons When you believe things without proof
: CalcShop Inc. you're in danger of believing almost
: rem...@interramp.com anything.
I normally don't quote .sigs, but I kind of like this one.
Kind of fits both sides of the argument, doesn't it?
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
(I'd rather be ROLLER COASTING!)
--
/-\ _ _ __ *** .SIG NOW OPEN!!!! ***
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /XX\_ _ _ _____
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ _/XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX\ /X\ /X\ /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX
Robert S. Fourney
Robert Emmons <rem...@interramp.com> wrote:
>
>You're right. I generalized too much. Let me put it like this.
>If there are no laws forcing people in a particular geographical
>area to buy helmets, few people will buy them, and fewer will
>wear them. Is that clear enough for you?
>
was wrong then, and it is just as clear, and just as wrong this time.
(It is a slightly different incorrect statement, but it is equally
incorrect) From what I have seen, it is incorrect for both bicycle
and motorcycle helmets. I live in a region that doesn't mandate
bicycle helmets for adults, and just started for kids. Most adults
I see riding have helmets on. Most kids don't, even though it is the
law. Having lived in non (motorcycle) helmet law states I have observed
that over half of the riders wear helmets, and a very high percentage
of them were "full face" helmets. I wear my motorcycle helmet LESS now
than I used to before the law was passed, partly because the law cheesed
me off and partly because I do a slower more controlled type of riding
now.
If you are going to continue to pollute the newsgroups with your
unfounded drivel, please remove rec.moto from your responses. We've got
guns and countersteering to argue about and don't need another helmet
law thread.
>
>--
>Robert Emmons When you believe things without proof
>CalcShop Inc. you're in danger of believing almost
>rem...@interramp.com anything.
>
This sig is why I first thought your inane post was bait. Why
don't you go dig up some proof to either of your erroneous statements
before you come back around here. Things like government surveys,
helmet use polls, anything that didn't crawl out of your own feeble
mind--which, by the way, I fully support your right to protect with the
helmet of your choice.
Sincerly,
Bob Fourney
Robert S. Fourney
Robert Emmons <rem...@interramp.com> wrote:
>In article <DD22K...@aisb.ed.ac.uk>, c...@aisb.ed.ac.uk says...
>>Ok. Here it seems about 2/3 of the cycling population wear
>>helmets. Logically speaking only one contrary case disproves a
>universal
>>statement, but since you're suffering from a cognitive
>handicap, I guess
>>we should ask you how many times you need to be proved wrong
>before you
>>change your mind?
>>
>
>I'm always amazed that people will hurl personal insults at you,
>just because they disagree with you on a minor point. Grow up.
>Get a life.
>
>
of hot air. You make inane statements, argue that they are true,
fail to provide anyproof, then whine when denizen after denizen points
out that you are WRONG. Then, a week later you come back with a
slightly reworded version of the same assertion and feign surprise when
a whole different group of people pronounce this statement as equally
sh*t-filled.
Bob Fourney
Chris BeHanna
:>In article <40822o$4...@newsserver.nj.nec.com>,
:>>
:>> Counterexample #2: At the most recent NECDoDSF, almost
:>all of the
:>>attendees had their helmets on (in New Hampshire).
:>>
:>No doubt almost all of them came from or rode through states
:>that require helmets.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
All of the attendees could have chosen to leave their helmets back
at the lodge when they went out for Saturday's ride. *None* did. Even the
lone rider who originally set off lidless took his helmet with him and put
it on later in the ride.
Chris BeHanna
:>You're right. I generalized too much. Let me put it like this.
:>If there are no laws forcing people in a particular geographical
:>area to buy helmets, few people will buy them, and fewer will
:>wear them. Is that clear enough for you?
Quite clear, but still quite wrong, at least where motorcycling is
concerned.
jim frost
>You're right. I generalized too much. Let me put it like this.
>If there are no laws forcing people in a particular geographical
>area to buy helmets, few people will buy them, and fewer will
>wear them. Is that clear enough for you?
That statement is also not true in this area. The majority of
bicyclists wear helmets despite the lack of a helmet law.
I think that this is the case for two reasons:
1. PR from the safety groups.
2. Helmets are really inexpensive.
Interestingly I see far more children without helmets than adults
despite the existance of a child helmet law.
jim frost
ji...@world.std.com
--
http://world.std.com/~jimf
Chris Malcolm
>Insurance companies don't want riders to wear helmets to protect the
>riders from injury. They want riders to have to wear helmets as part
>of their plan to remove bikes from the roadways.
And because it gives them more options for small print they can use to
wriggle out of paying you. Not wearing a helmet? Sorry, outside the
terms of contract. What? You modified the helmet by painting your name
on it? Was the paint Snell-approved? No? Sorry, unauthorised
modification, no payment. The helmet came off? Our investigator
reports that the buckle was worn. Not maintaining the helmet in good
working order places you outside the contract, I'm afraid. They employ
serious experts at wriggling out of paying who just *love* this kind
of thing!
--
Chris Malcolm c...@aifh.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
"The mind reigns, but does not govern" -- Paul Valery
Robert Emmons
dal...@freenet.columbus.oh.us says...
>
>: --
>: CalcShop Inc. you're in danger of believing almost
>: rem...@interramp.com anything.
>
>Kind of fits both sides of the argument, doesn't it?
>
With reference to my sig, my assertion about uncoerced helmet
use is not really testable as far as I know. The only way to
test it is to have an isolated geographical area where people
are not forced to buy helmets because they may need them when
riding outside their home jurisdictions. Consequently, it's hard
to be positive about what people would do.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert "DancesWithDames" Emmons, CalcShop Inc.
rem...@interramp.com
When we believe things without proof,
we're in danger of believing almost anything.
Nothing blinds us like our own knowledge.
Robert Emmons
Someone wrote that 88% of motorcyclists in the UK wore
helmets before a law requiring it. That is an important fact
against my position. But the English are, well, atypical -
not representative of the world or USA population. For
example, in Greece, helmets are required by law, but on my
recent trip there, I saw that the country was literally
loaded with motorcyclists and almost none wore helmets.
Apparently, they just ignore the law.
It is well known that few people will pay extra to by air
bags or seat belts if they are optional on a car. Many
people won't even use seat belts when coerced into buying
them. If they did, there would be no air bags. Human nature
being what it is, people would probably feel the same about
helmets. No helmet laws - few helmets worn.
Spike White
: It is well known that few people will pay extra to by air
: bags or seat belts if they are optional on a car.
Because they should be standard equipment. Seat belts have been std for yrs
and air bags are on most vehicles.
Many people will not buy a vehicle unless an air bag comes standard. Otherwise,
they'll buy another make/model. That's such a common requirement now that if
you look at Consumer Reports or any of the other rags, it'll list how many air
bags come standard.
My brother-in-law won't buy a vehicle unless dual air bags comes standard.
What's your point?
PS I'm still deciding whether ~1K for ABS is worth it or not.
--
Spike White | sp...@hal.com | Biker Nerds From
HaL Computer Corp | http://www.hal.com/~spike/index.html | HaL
Austin, TX | '87 BMW K75S, DoD #1347 |
Disclaimer: HaL, do you want me to speak for you? No, Dave...
Jerry Fields
> Robert Emmons (rem...@interramp.com) wrote:
>
> : It is well known that few people will pay extra to by air
> : bags or seat belts if they are optional on a car.
>
> Because they should be standard equipment. Seat belts have been std for yrs
> and air bags are on most vehicles.
>
> Many people will not buy a vehicle unless an air bag comes standard.
Otherwise,
> they'll buy another make/model. That's such a common requirement now that if
> you look at Consumer Reports or any of the other rags, it'll list how
many air
> bags come standard.
>
> My brother-in-law won't buy a vehicle unless dual air bags comes standard.
>
> What's your point?
>
> PS I'm still deciding whether ~1K for ABS is worth it or not.
>
> --
<snip sig>
Robert:
Do you live in a non-helmet state? If not, drive to one and verify your
theory, if you can. Speak to local MC riders, and ask them why they do or
don't have helmets. Stop in at mc shops, and ask how many helmets they
sell with their bikes.
I've lived and owned bikes in 3 states: Wisconsin, Colorado, and Oregon.
Colorado was (is?) a non-helmet state, yet a large number of bikers,
probably a majority, wore helmets. I bought a helmet, the reasons were:
1. Safer for my head.
2. Kept my head warm in cold weather/mountain pass riding
3. Helps keep gravel/bugs/rain out of my eyes.
4. Increased visability to cages; every bit helps.
What people have been trying to tell you is that your theory doesn't hold
up to reality. People do buy motorcycle safety gear, even if not mandated.
If you doubt this, ask yourself why there are so many
leather/Aerostitch/Kevlar threads going on rec.moto. I don't know of a
single state that requires protective clothing other than a helmet. This
stuff is a lot more expensive than a good helmet, so price may not be the
deciding factor; safety, comfort, and perhaps image are all considered
factors.
What people do with cages has little to do with motorcycles. Cages have
different risk factors. They are used for multiple uses that a mc is not
called upon, unless you drop your kids off at the daycare from your bike.
:-)
Bikers who are not required by law to have helmets...still buy helmets,
and not just to use them on out of state runs.
--
Jerry Fields (DoD#1697)
'87 Audi 5K CST, '83 Toyota, '84 Ford E-150, '83 Yamaha XS 400 Maxim, 3 cats, 1 wife, 2 kids, 3 snowmobiles and a dog."Life is Interesting!"
jim frost
>PS I'm still deciding whether ~1K for ABS is worth it or not.
It is. ABS is #1 on my list of cost-effective safety equipment, as it
gives even panicked or totally inexperienced drivers braking and
maneuvering power that rivals the best theoretically obtainable. The
best way to walk away from an accident is to avoid it!
I am not so big a fan of airbags; belt pretensioners have similar
benefits at much lower costs. They would, however, require you to
actually bother to wear the belt.
I'm also a bit wary of explosives situated less than two feet from my
chest. :-)
Robert Emmons
jerry....@ccmail.adp.wisc.edu says...
>Robert:
>
>Do you live in a non-helmet state? If not, drive to one and
verify your
>theory, if you can. Speak to local MC riders, and ask them why
they do or
>don't have helmets. Stop in at mc shops, and ask how many
helmets they
>sell with their bikes.
>
Sounds like a good idea. Unfortunately, I have a life.
I'm glad you like helmets. I never said I didn't.