Skull Study Proves Bike Helmets Work
Les Earnest
through their thick skulls. Have fun, but I'm not sticking around.
-Les Earnest
Bill C
It just makes some sense that anything that absorbs impact is going to
help, but I really wish that they were dropping those test items onto a
spinning sandpaper belt that would replicate the torsional effect of
ashphalt on the helmet. The coefficient of friction involved there
would seem to me, and to some others, be a question that needs
investigating. They also need to test what the rotational forces are
with various weight pinning the helmet to the moving surface and how
that effects the rotational direction in the force applied to the
person.
At most bicycle speeds my guess is that this isn't a big deal, other
than on serious decents, but I don't remember seeing info on this with
relation to bicycle helmets. For the vast majority of crashes,
especially at kid speed, I just haven't seen any negative to wearing
helmets, or for forcing learning/inexperienced riders who are at much
higher risk to wear them sinc it comes out of all our collective
insurance rates, or tax dollars.
Once they are over 18, then they should have free choice, but
insurance companies shouldn't have to pay for head injuries incurred
while not wearing a helmet, and if the state pays, then the tax
returns, if any, should be taken until the cost is payed off.
Freedom always comes with cost, and responsibility.
Bill C
Charles
"Les Earnest" <l...@cs.staqnford.edu> wrote in message
news:e2ucqo$eh8$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
> Here is an opportunity for the anti-helmet folks to get something
> through their thick skulls. Have fun, but I'm not sticking around.
>
About helmets... apply Darwinism here.
Les, you flame thrower. Run before you get caught in the fire.
Kinda like pulling the fire alarm to watch everyone scramble. Or shooting
bottle rockets at a dorm ...
Tom Kunich
> their thick skulls. Have fun, but I'm not sticking around.
>
> http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/481959/skull_study_proves_bike_helmets_work/index.html?source=r_health
Helmets works it says. And then they use a bunch of phony statistics and
gee - they don't give the actual methodology they used to TEST these things.
A brain isn't WATER. Cracked or not the impact is rarely the cause of death
and the spining of the brain in the skull that causes the blood vessels to
rupture and the brain to be crushed by the inflation of the skull with blood
pressure is.
Another two bit number - 70,000 head injuries a year. And yet 67,000 of them
are minor injuries TO THE FACE.
The fact is that if they HAD some scientific evidence that was worthwhile
they would print it instead of telling us that they did it and it was good
enough for them.
But of course the REAL numbers show no changes in head injury numbers before
helmets and now that essentially everyone but homeless poeple wear them.
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/kunich.html
See table "US Cyclist & Pedestrian Fatalities 1986 - 2000"
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/image18.gif
See table "Figure 2 Trends (pedestrians/cyclists scaled to 5.65:1 ratio) "
And as an added bonus:
http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/march/ac722.pdf
"Injuries to cyclists follow a clear "safety in numbers" relation; injury
rates per cyclist are lower when more people cycle.17 Data for cyclists in
collisions with motor vehicles (see bmj.com) show helmet laws increased the
risk of death or serious head injury relative to the risk for pedestrians
and the amount of cycling. This implies helmet laws are counterproductive."
http://www.pulsus.com/Paeds/09_05/mok_ed.htm
"The results indicate that risk compensation may modify the effectiveness of
PE (protective Equipment) for children engaged in sports and leisure
activities."
Look, it is plain that a helmet can add a certain level of safety. But this
level is extremely low. But the fact is that of those 70,000 "head" injuries
a year there are 20%-30% of them that a helmet could certainly modify from a
"minor" injury - meaning level 2 concussion or below - to little or no
injuries.
What I'm saying is that there is sufficient evidence that helmets are
worthwhile for those who CHOOSE to wear one because most accidents are minor
to begin with and helmet are effective in reducing the injuries in a minor
accident.
Sadly this last weekend at the Fremont Freewheelers century a 52 year old
man riding down the Palomares hill reportedly only 20 miles from the end,
fell off of his bike struck his head and died. Pretending that a helmet will
make up for good sense, care or ability is a recipe for disaster. I only
point this out because this was the IDEAL conditions in which a helmet
should have had a measureable effect if helmets were effective enough to
tout like they are being touted. No motor vehicle was involved and apprently
no other bicycle was involved aside from the possibility that he touched a
wheel.
Let us assume that a helmet COULD make some small difference in death or
serious injury rates - the statistics have about a 10% error rate so let us
assume that of the 700 deaths and 2,500 serious injuries we could save 70
lives and reduce 250 serious injuries to something less. To do so would have
cost us tens of millions of dollars in advertising, safety programs, posters
in every school, every bicycle shop, every place where a cyclist might see
it and actually pay attention to it.
Do you realize that of ALL of the deaths in the USA each and every year,
only 4% of them are due to ALL accidents combined? Are you aware that
bicycling accidents are SO small that the deaths related to bicycle
accidents aren't even listed in the accident statistics used by the
government?
Are you aware that there are some 20,000 deaths in the USA each and every
year by accidental overdose of illegal drugs? And there are plenty of people
here who think not one second about using illegal drugs often.
Are you aware that there are 100,000 deaths each year from the effects of
JUST alcohol? That's aside from the other 25,000 motor vehicle deaths in
which alcohol plays a less than major role.
So exactly what is with the people who feel the need to save AT THE MOST
some 70 people a year and reduce the level of injuries of perhaps another
250? And let's remember that 99% of the "serious" injuries return to
effective normal.
If you WANT to wear a helmet by all means do so. If you feel the need to
convince others to wear a helmet perhaps you ought to see a psychiatrist.
Davey Crockett
Figures don't lie
But Liars can sure figure
--
Le vent a Dos
Davey Crockett
Casey Diaz
"Les Earnest" <l...@cs.staqnford.edu> wrote in message
news:e2ucqo$eh8$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
chiefh...@gmail.com
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/mar06/msr06/index.php?id=sirotti_msr121
xzzy
Are you "off on a vacation to Fiji again"?
1. The article you post and then run away from, is a poster child for how
to flunk a Statistics exam.
2. Speaking from personal experience:
- in March 2001, I was run over by a Camaro Z28
- I was not wearing a helmet because I never want to feel safe when
I workout
- My head never hit anything because I have always practiced:
- how to properly react if I do get hit
- tumbling so I know how to click-out, bounce, tumble, roll and
protect if I do get hit
Let's go for a ride and talk,
John Bickmore
303-695-6467
"Les Earnest" <l...@cs.staqnford.edu> wrote in message
news:e2ucqo$eh8$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
Casey Diaz
<chiefh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146286234.9...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>About helmets... apply Darwinism here.
The Darwinism comment. A true sign of idiocy.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
jim
1 - Get on your knees
2 - Bang your head on the ground whilst wearing a helmet and then whilst
not.
3 - If it hurts less in the former state then wear a helmet.
4 - If it hurts less in the latter state then don't wear a helmet.
5 - Regardless of the result have anice time
"Les Earnest" <l...@cs.staqnford.edu> wrote in message
news:e2ucqo$eh8$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
Bestest Handsander
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/mar06/msr06/index.php?id=sirotti_msr121
>
Man! That thing is the best argument yet against helmets! I've seen others
compare it to Marvin the Martian from the Bugs Bunny cartoons.
Charles
> >
> >
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/mar06/msr06/index.php?id=sirotti_msr121
> >
>
> Man! That thing is the best argument yet against helmets! I've seen others
> compare it to Marvin the Martian from the Bugs Bunny cartoons.
>
>
on second thought, maybe not. We will need fewer doctors and Paramedics.
Tim Lines
> home experiment
>
> 1 - Get on your knees
> 2 - Bang your head on the ground whilst wearing a helmet and then whilst
> not.
> 3 - If it hurts less in the former state then wear a helmet.
> 4 - If it hurts less in the latter state then don't wear a helmet.
> 5 - Regardless of the result have anice time
I couldn't tell the difference, but it was easier to crack my driveway
without the helmet. This implies that the helmet DOES absorb some of the
impact.
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>Once they are over 18, then they should have free choice, but
>insurance companies shouldn't have to pay for head injuries incurred
>while not wearing a helmet, and if the state pays, then the tax
>returns, if any, should be taken until the cost is payed off.
> Freedom always comes with cost, and responsibility.
>Bill C
Bill, I don't give a damn who wears a helmet, but I did do the numbers
on capitated coverage in an inner city, and closely, as in making a
mistake meant the difference between being in business and not. The
tax payers do NOT have to worry about the impact of people riding
bikes without helmets. They DO have to worry about the costs of AIDS,
diabetes, emphysema, and other diseases, because they happen every day
and to a large portion of the population especially those that have no
medical coverage.
While I will not argue that a person that rides a bike without a
helmet is safer than one that rides with a helmet, I will argue that
the potential impact on long term health costs of a person that rides
a bike with or without a helmet is positive compared to sitting on a
couch, eating a Big Mac, washing it down with a soda and staring at a
tv. Guess which one happens more often?
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Curtis L. Russell
<usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:22:43 -0400, "Charles" <h90...@hotmail.commie>
>wrote:
>
>>About helmets... apply Darwinism here.
>
>The Darwinism comment. A true sign of idiocy.
>
>JT
>
Not least of which because it is being misapplied on so many levels.
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>Helmets create jobs. Someome has to design and manufacture the things. Well
>on second thought, maybe not. We will need fewer doctors and Paramedics.
No, not really. We occasionally get a psuedo-EMT on the lists that
tells about all of the helmetless bicycle riders he or she hauls into
the emergency room, but I've found no emergency clinic that claims
such stats. Talk to an EMT at the next bike race and ask him how many
of his or her runs are for bike riders. Check out the traffic in the
local area - see how many are for bike riders. Stop at a sports or
long term treatment facility and see how many are there due to
helmetless bike riding. Damn few.
No, the EMTs are rushing to auto accidents, heart attacks, falls in
the bathtub, failure to breathes, on and on. Most of the bike
incidents? Small kids, helmet or no.
Long term care? Auto accidents, seizures, brain damage as a secondary
or tertiary situation of another medical incident. Damn few from
riding without a helmet.
Go back to your war, but try real targets.
Sandy
I have no intuition, but I'll bet you can find better data, from which
to derive opinions, from countries with national health insurance. In
such an envirionment, people feel very free to use hospital facilities,
as there is not going to be a big charge. This would pick up data on
the scrapes and bruises that may go unreported in the US. Don't know.
--
Bonne route !
Sandy
Curtis L. Russell
>I have no intuition, but I'll bet you can find better data, from which
>to derive opinions, from countries with national health insurance. In
>such an envirionment, people feel very free to use hospital facilities,
>as there is not going to be a big charge. This would pick up data on
>the scrapes and bruises that may go unreported in the US. Don't know
EMT runs and emergency room reports are the U.S. equivalent of
national health care in many areas. Many emergency rooms are not
permitted to turn away a real case and one of the issues that I dealt
with was a tendency for people in inner city Baltimore to use the
emergency room rather than the health clinic (which raised expenses
pretty much all the way around). So if you are talking about incidents
requiring treatment, the e-room is a good barometer, at least in an
urban setting.
B. Lafferty
"Curtis L. Russell" <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote in message
news:va7c52dfjtmbdvieu...@4ax.com...
It is difficult to compare US health care statistics with national health
systems. In many industrialized countries with national health coverage
(most industrialized western countries) people are probably not only more
likely to go to a hospital for treatment, they are also more likely to go to
a primary care physician as well. Most of the poor, working poor and others
in the US with no coverage frequently use the ER as their primary point of
medial care. I'd be interested to see the statistical differences whether
related to cycling injuries or not.
Bill C
I agree completely that there is no question that the benefit to
society of riding with, or without, especially today with obesity
exploding, is a huge positive. I'm have no idea what the dollar cost to
society is for non-helmet accidents, but I'm sure it's a miniscule
percentage of the costs of heart disease, diabetes, etc...A little
investment in long term prevention and education would go a long way,
especially with kids, but we can't seem to get out of the instant
gratification/reactive mode and plan ahead a bit.
Look at all the schools that cut phys ed/gym first thing, that's about
as short sighted as it gets. I'm not saying it's the schools fault,
because they are in the academic education business as a bottom line,
I'm saying it's all our faults for not supporting the investment better
whether it's with money or more direct involvement.
Bill C
Bill C
Hey Curtis
You need a time penalty or something. Intelligent discussion is NOT
allowed in helmet threads. You have to be a raving, flaming, looney of
either persuasion. Rational people have been punted out of this
forever. They don't want to hear from us because they're on a Crusade
for your own good, Damnit!
Glad to see you posting and hope the weekend went well.
Bill C
Tom Kunich
news:WDp5g.130$F4...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
It isn't hard to compare national heath care in Great Britain, New Zealand,
Canada or Australia now is it? Why do you suppose we haven't seen any
"study" save the few rare one's that have massaged the data for minor
injuries and extrapolate to serious injuries or deaths from that?
The fact is that you CAN'T make statistical revelations with the largest
numbers in any one country and if you combine the numbers from all first
world countries there STILL isn't enough data to make any accurate
prognostication of any changes in serios injuries or deaths prevented by
helmets.
If there is the odd man accident in which a helmet makes any detectible
difference it is easily a freak accident and one that actually PROVES that
we should be spending our money elsewhere.
B. Lafferty
"Tom Kunich" <tku...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:w2B5g.214$Ae1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Eunuch, it's clear you didn't read my post. Reread it and pay particular
attention to the last sentence.
As for your comment on statistical cross studies of various health care
systems, once again you're wrong. SSDD for the Eunuch.
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
> Glad to see you posting and hope the weekend went well.
Beautiful day, big crowd, and good speakers. Elie Weisel is still in
good form. We pulled to the edges of the crowd to finally eat lunch
about the time George Clooney and the celebrities started to speak, so
we could hear them but not see them. We were swimming upstream against
young girls trying to get closer to the center when we left.
Other than the priest that pulled the Armenian genocide into the
picture a bit more than appropriate and the NAACP spokesman, which
much like the last four or five times they have appeared at an event,
they seem to be more addressing internal and external politics and
less whatever the event is about, the day was non-political,
interacial and interfaith, though skewed Jewish because of their
historical concern with genocide. Jewish groups occupied the entire
right side of the mall for all practical purposes. Felt like I was
back at the JCC, especially when some guy started blowing a
mini-shofar horn.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Pudd'nhead Wilson
> largest numbers in any one country and if you combine the
> numbers from all first world countries there STILL isn't enough
> data to make any accurate prognostication of any changes in
> serios injuries or deaths prevented by helmets.
Inconclusiveness is double-edged.
> If there is the odd man accident in which a helmet makes any detectible
> difference it is easily a freak accident and one that actually PROVES that
> we should be spending our money elsewhere.
Some people get satisfaction from gambling. It proves nothing since
gambling is valued by gamblers.
If one "wins" a freak accident lottery by having a positive but
unexpected result, then this simply says the unlikely result was
exactly what the gambler hoped to win by playing.
Stu Fleming
>>The fact is that you CAN'T make statistical revelations with the
>>largest numbers in any one country and if you combine the
>>numbers from all first world countries there STILL isn't enough
>>data to make any accurate prognostication of any changes in
>>serios injuries or deaths prevented by helmets.
>
>
> Inconclusiveness is double-edged.
I think you will find that either:
Inconclusiveness is...
OR, more in a sword-like vein:
Inconclusiveness doesn't have a point.
Bill C
Really seemed like a great weekend. Thanks for the inside scoop, and
helping keep it in the public's eye. Wish I could've been there.
Bill C
Tom Kunich
news:1146598953.1...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> The fact is that you CAN'T make statistical revelations with the
>> largest numbers in any one country and if you combine the
>> numbers from all first world countries there STILL isn't enough
>> data to make any accurate prognostication of any changes in
>> serios injuries or deaths prevented by helmets.
>
> Inconclusiveness is double-edged.
Indeed, how right you are. But we can't prove a negative and everyone else
is insisting that helmet MUST work because they're "better than nothing."
>> If there is the odd man accident in which a helmet makes any detectible
>> difference it is easily a freak accident and one that actually PROVES
>> that
>> we should be spending our money elsewhere.
>
> Some people get satisfaction from gambling. It proves nothing since
> gambling is valued by gamblers.
>
> If one "wins" a freak accident lottery by having a positive but
> unexpected result, then this simply says the unlikely result was
> exactly what the gambler hoped to win by playing.
You can argue with that logic but that only works on an individual scale.
The government and thousands of charities and "safety" organizations are
spending millions of dollars each year pretty helmets where the same money
spend teaching them proper diet, exercise and good habits would have
IMMEDIATE, LARGE and LASTING positive effects that would be detectable in a
year or so.
There's nothing wrong with you deciding that for your money a helmet is a
good investment or a good gamble if you must. But the frantic screeching
from the helmet lobby is turning into something of a bizarre lie that's
taken on a life of its own.
You can see MANY organizations using the phoney results from the
decades-since-discredited Thomas, Rivara, Thompson paper in all of their
present day "safety programs".
People have become mentally disturbed about helmets and its all BS.
Mike Murray
"Curtis L. Russell" <cur...@md-bicycling.org> wrote:
> EMT runs and emergency room reports are the U.S. equivalent of
> national health care in many areas. Many emergency rooms are not
> permitted to turn away a real case and one of the issues that I dealt
> with was a tendency for people in inner city Baltimore to use the
> emergency room rather than the health clinic (which raised expenses
> pretty much all the way around). So if you are talking about incidents
> requiring treatment, the e-room is a good barometer, at least in an
> urban setting.
Actually NO emergency department in the US is allowed to turn away anyone,
at least without performing a "medical screening exam". To do otherwise
would be to violate the Federal law, the EMTALA. In fact, to even ask for
payment or discuss financial aspects prior to the MSE violates EMTALA. It
is, therefore, not much of a surprise that people use the ED for routine
health care not only in the inner city but all over the country. It is
probably the only business in the US were you can walk in and spend
thousands of dollars without any addressing of the cost beforehand. I don't
think that there would be any reason to think that ED use is greater in
countries with national health care, in fact I would expect that ED use
would be less there.
Mike Murray
Tom Kunich
news:ivqdnSF1Lt2...@comcast.com...
Damn! I wish I knew that when I had my toe smashed by a lawnmower. I was in
the emergency room for over an hour while they tried to find a doctor and
you could hear them on the phone with plastic surgeons and says, "No he
hasn't got any insurance" and the doctor wouldn't be available. Finally they
could a bone guy who came in and cut it off. It hurt so much that it felt
good when they cut it off.
Mike Murray
Yes, this could have been an EMTALA violation which has large financial
penalties for the hospital as well as the individual physicians.
--
Mike Murray
Robert Chung
> I don't think that there would be any reason to
> think that ED use is greater in countries with national health care, in
> fact I would expect that ED use would be less there.
Would you expect ED use to be greater in states in the US that have larger
proportions of uninsured? I haven't been able to find anything online that
shows ED usage by state.
Ewoud Dronkert
>I haven't been able to find anything online that shows ED usage by state.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ewoud/photo/ewoud/l/borrel97.jpg
I was in quite a state.
Cheers!
ED
Tom Kunich
news:4im56290i8dedurni...@4ax.com...
I've often heard it said, "Oh what a state the Ed is in!"