Another Helmet Thread

[T0m $herman]

Another couple of nails in the coffin of Thompson, Rivara, Thompson.

<http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen/bmas-helmet-stance-questioned-usa-safety-authorities-drop-key-helmet-claim>

--
T0m $herm@n

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 16, 2:57 am, "T0m $herman"

<twsherman@REMOVE_THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Another couple of nails in the coffin of Thompson, Rivara, Thompson.
>

> <http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen/bmas-helmet-stance-questioned...>
>
> --
> T0m $herm@n

Yes, I heard that NHTSA is finally (after nearly 25 years!) dropping
the ludicrous "85% benefit" claim. I'm also seeing more "cycling is
not dangerous" press. It seems that sanity may finally be returning.
Slowly.

- Frank Krygowski

[mcole...@googlemail.com]

Hmmm, interesting.

I made the same point myself about the negative effects of discouraging cycling, although being candid with assumptions rather than objective data to justify it, in a recent thread;

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.bicycles.tech/OJv6ow5WrvI/YsIsqntZdoEJ

[Jay Beattie]

Ooooh, you're going to hate this helmet-saved-life story from
yesterday's news:
http://www.kptv.com/story/22603582/hit-and-run-driver-injures-bicyclist?topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8997933

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

And on top of that the guy was hit from behind. Another "favorite" of
the take the lane crowd.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 17, 11:13 am, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 10:13 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
>
> > Ooooh, you're going to hate this helmet-saved-life story from
> > yesterday's news:

> >http://www.kptv.com/story/22603582/hit-and-run-driver-injures-bicycli...

>
> And on top of that the guy was hit from behind.  Another "favorite" of
> the take the lane crowd.

Why are you assuming he was taking the lane? The photos show what
seems to be a narrow bike lane. I can't tell (from debris, etc.)
where the impact occurred, but I'd bet he was to the right of the
magic, all-protective white line.

Do any other reports mention whether or not he had a taillight?
Lights were not mentioned, but even a very ordinary taillight is far
more effective than the reflective jacket that was mentioned.

And of course, there is a possibility that the helmet did save his
life. There seem to be perhaps 35000 "my helmet saved my life"
stories annually in the U.S. Some of them may actually be true.

Of course, there are only about 750 annual bike deaths in the U.S.
What does it mean when the number of lives "saved" greatly exceeds the
record number of deaths? That if the person did not wear a helmet,
ten people around him would have died with him? Just wondering.

- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

Not sure what post you're responding to, but the fact is (if facts
actually matter) that there is absolutely no evidence that either
encouraging or requiring helmets actually discourages cycling (or
encourages it for that matter).

Even though cycling rates increased in countries that implemented
mandatory helmet laws it would be just as wrong to claim that the
increase in cycling rates was actually a result of the helmet
legislation as it would be to claim the opposite if there had been a
decrease. There are many factors that contribute to changes in cycling
rates, but helmet legislation has never been found to be one of those
factors. When someone incorrectly claims that there was a decrease in
cycling following the adoption of a helmet law, and claims that the
helmet law was responsible, they're beginning with a fabricated premise,
then speculating as to how something that didn't happen was caused by
the new law.

You now see claims that obesity rates increased as a result of helmet
laws in Australia but of of course obesity rates had been increasing
before the helmet law. Some people just can't resist taking two
unrelated things and trying to correlate them (this claim was on one of
the most disreputable anti-helmet sites where they will say _anything_
and always, intentionally, ignore the difference between correlation and
causation).

I personally think that adults should be permitted to decide the level
of risk they take in life and that legislation is uncalled for.
Education is a better approach. After being made aware of the facts
regarding the benefits of protective equipment adults can decide whether
or not to take advantage of the equipment. There can be financial
incentives to encourage the use of protective equipment and of course we
already see that in other areas when it comes to the cost of auto,
health, and life insurance. In countries with national health care it
gets a bit more complicated since these countries have a vested interest
in reducing the rates of head injuries but unless they're also going to
pass laws regulating every personal choice that increases medical costs
then they shouldn't do it for helmets either.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 17, 10:13 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> Ooooh, you're going to hate this helmet-saved-life story from

> yesterday's news:http://www.kptv.com/story/22603582/hit-and-run-driver-injures-bicycli...

Oh heck, as long as we're rolling:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen/bmas-helmet-stance-questioned-usa-safety-authorities-drop-key-helmet-claim

- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 6/17/2013 7:13 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

> Ooooh, you're going to hate this helmet-saved-life story from
> yesterday's news:
> http://www.kptv.com/story/22603582/hit-and-run-driver-injures-bicyclist?topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8997933

The most amazing thing to me is that you still have people doing the
"foam hat" schtick, disregarding the fact that it's the foam, that's
designed to absorb impact and be destroyed in the process, that's the
key component in helmets.

BTW, the story didn't say if the cyclist had lights, just that he was
wearing reflective material. One thing I notice at night is that a lot
of cyclists tend to have very crappy rear LED flashers that don't have
much range in terms of visibility.

[Duane]

On 6/17/2013 2:24 PM, sms wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 7:13 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
>> Ooooh, you're going to hate this helmet-saved-life story from
>> yesterday's news:
>> http://www.kptv.com/story/22603582/hit-and-run-driver-injures-bicyclist?topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8997933
>>
>
> The most amazing thing to me is that you still have people doing the
> "foam hat" schtick, disregarding the fact that it's the foam, that's
> designed to absorb impact and be destroyed in the process, that's the
> key component in helmets.
>

Not that amazing considering the people.

> BTW, the story didn't say if the cyclist had lights, just that he was
> wearing reflective material. One thing I notice at night is that a lot
> of cyclists tend to have very crappy rear LED flashers that don't have
> much range in terms of visibility.

You may be right but it seems to me that a car with its headlights on
should be able to see a cyclist with reflective gear before they hit
them from behind. Maybe the driver was drunk, texting or doing
something else illegal and that's why they fled the scene.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 17, 3:37 pm, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 2:24 PM, sms wrote:
>
> > On 6/17/2013 7:13 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> >> Ooooh, you're going to hate this helmet-saved-life story from
> >> yesterday's news:

> >>http://www.kptv.com/story/22603582/hit-and-run-driver-injures-bicycli...

>
> > The most amazing thing to me is that you still have people doing the
> > "foam hat" schtick, disregarding the fact that it's the foam, that's
> > designed to absorb impact and be destroyed in the process, that's the
> > key component in helmets.
>
> Not that amazing considering the people.

Drop the ad hominem nonsense. Talk facts. Did you read the piece I
linked from the Cyclists' Touring Club of Britain?

>
> > BTW, the story didn't say if the cyclist had lights, just that he was
> > wearing reflective material. One thing I notice at night is that a lot
> > of cyclists tend to have very crappy rear LED flashers that don't have
> > much range in terms of visibility.
>
> You may be right but it seems to me that a car with its headlights on
> should be able to see a cyclist with reflective gear before they hit
> them from behind.  Maybe the driver was drunk, texting or doing
> something else illegal and that's why they fled the scene.

It's true, a driver (um, not "a car") with headlights should be able
to see any cyclist. But I've got papers on file showing that active
lights are far more effective than reflective anything. The physics
is pretty simple. Why rely on the motorist's perhaps defective
headlights to send lumens twice as far? Make your own lumens.

I think a lot of cyclists do their purchasing based on what's
currently trendy, not necessarily what works well; and reflective
clothes are a bit trendy now. Yes, they can be more visible than non-
reflective clothing. But they're no match for even a mediocre light.
In fact, I don't think they can match even pedal reflectors.

(I live on one of the very few states that requires active taillights
on bikes at night. But they're a very good idea whether mandated or
not.)

- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 6/17/2013 12:37 PM, Duane wrote:

> You may be right but it seems to me that a car with its headlights on
> should be able to see a cyclist with reflective gear before they hit
> them from behind. Maybe the driver was drunk, texting or doing
> something else illegal and that's why they fled the scene.

The news report said that the driver was driving erratically prior to
the crash so it probably was alcohol or texting related. They usually
are able to solve these cases though the chance of the driver having
insurance is probably pretty low.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Frank.

I know that you are vehemently anti-helmet but...

Take a melon and strap a helmet to it and then drop that helmeted melon from eight feet or so in such a way that it hits the ground helmet side down. You'll notice there is very little damage to that melon. Now take the same melon or another one of comparable size and drop it from the same height but without the helmet covering it. Notice that the unprotected helmet suffers a LOT MORE damage.

A helmet won't protect from every impact but they can help a lot.

Cheers

[sms]

On 6/17/2013 3:24 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

> Frank.
>
> I know that you are vehemently anti-helmet but...
>
> Take a melon and strap a helmet to it and then drop that helmeted melon from eight feet or so in such a way that it hits the ground helmet side down. You'll notice there is very little damage to that melon. Now take the same melon or another one of comparable size and drop it from the same height but without the helmet covering it. Notice that the unprotected helmet suffers a LOT MORE damage.
>
> A helmet won't protect from every impact but they can help a lot.

Not even Frank disputes the fact that in instances of head impact
crashes, helmets save lives. He's even mentioned that he favors helmet
wearing in situations where the risk of such crashes is higher than the
risk normally encountered in recreational or utilitarian cycling.

Whether or not cycling is "safe" depends on what you're comparing it
against. Compared to other forms of transportation, such as driving,
cycling is far more dangerous (whether the comparison is per hour or per
distance unit). A 2001 Rutgers university study, for the U.S., showed 72
fatalities per billion miles for bicyclist, 6 fatalities per billion
miles for vehicle occupants, and an earlier Rutgers study concluded "In
short, the dangers of walking and cycling in America are not just
perceived; they are real." Yet if you look at the absolute numbers, not
the percentages, the rates are pretty low for both vehicle occupants and
bicyclists.

Helmet promotion is given too much attention in the U.S., because they
are proven to reduce injuries and fatalities, but what's really needed
is traffic calming, more enforcement of existing laws, and most
importantly better facilities. "Unlike the sparse and fragmented cycling
facilities in the United States, the bike paths, lanes, and streets in
The Netherlands and Germany form a truly coordinated network covering
both rural and urban areas. Importantly, Dutch and German bikeway
systems serve practical destinations for everyday travel, not just
recreational attractions, as with most bike paths in the United States."

In my area, Silicon Valley, there's been solid progress in the bikeway
system. In April, a vital part of the system opened
<http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_23071849/sleek-new-trail-opens-through-heart-san-jose>.
It's not a very scenic route, but it's very practical and it's not
overrun with strollers, joggers, dogs, skateboarders, etc. because it's
not appealing to them.

[T0m $herman]

I will start using bicycle foam hats to bring home melons from the
grocery store then. ;)

--
T0m $herm@n

[T0m $herman]

Is not that the link I posted originally?

--
T0m $herm@n

[T0m $herman]

Is Scharf psychotic, or does he just play at it on Usenet?

--
T0m $herm@n

[Frank Krygowski]

I understand your faith.

But do you have an explanation for the fact (noted in the recent
Bicycling magazine article) that bicyclist concussions have increased
tremendously since helmets became popular?

Do you have an explanation for the fact that pedestrian fatalities
have dropped far faster than bicyclist fatalities since bike helmets
became popular?

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 17, 8:06 pm, sms <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Not even Frank disputes the fact that in instances of head impact
> crashes, helmets save lives.

And yet, since bike helmets became fashionable, the number of
pedestrian fatalities has dropped faster than the number of bike
fatalities. See http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html
Both have doubtlessly benefited from the rapid improvement in
emergency medical techniques. Why don't the bike death counts show
added benefit from the styrofoam?

(And since so many more pedestrians die of brain injury, why are
helmets not suggested for them?)

> Whether or not cycling is "safe" depends on what you're comparing it
> against.

There are _lots_ of things that people do that are more dangerous than
bicycling. See http://www.ohiobike.org/misc/CyclingIsSafeTLK.pdf

> Compared to other forms of transportation, such as driving,
> cycling is far more dangerous (whether the comparison is per hour or per
> distance unit). A 2001 Rutgers university study, for the U.S., showed 72
> fatalities per billion miles for bicyclist, 6 fatalities per billion
> miles for vehicle occupants, and an earlier Rutgers study concluded "In
> short, the dangers of walking and cycling in America are not just
> perceived; they are real." Yet if you look at the absolute numbers, not
> the percentages, the rates are pretty low for both vehicle occupants and
> bicyclists.

That sounds like John Pucher's propaganda. But you've omitted the
fact that Pucher's own data shows cycling in the U.S. to be over three
times safer than walking!

Furthermore, the motoring data for the U.S. is skewed by the large
percentage of miles driven on limited access highways (such as
interstates) to cover long distances. Limited access highways are
amazingly safe, and have nothing to do with normal cycling distances.
If you take them out of the picture, motoring and cycling are much
more evenly matched regarding risk.

A few years ago, the GAO bemoaned the fact that U.S. highway spending
was far too biased in favor of limited access highways. It pointed
out that the death rate (per mile) was aready far, far lower on
limited access highways than on local rural roads, and claimed money
should be spent on the rural roads instead. Well, it turns out that
the per-mile fatality rate for driving on local rural roads was a
pretty close match for the overall per-mile rate for bicycling. IOW,
on average, riding a bike is about as dangerous as taking a drive in
the country. Do you fear driving in farm country?

And I'll point out, competent cyclists have fatality rates far lower
than "average." They omit the deaths from riding facing traffic,
riding drunk (something like 37% of the total, IIRC), riding at night
with no lights, etc. Why not concentrate on those things, instead of
on the style of hat, or the fantasy of separate paths to reach every
destination?

- Frank Krygowski

[Duane]

No air bags in the velomobile?

[Dan O]

On Jun 17, 9:49 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 10:13 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ooooh, you're going to hate this helmet-saved-life story from
> > yesterday's news:http://www.kptv.com/story/22603582/hit-and-run-driver-injures-bicycli...
>
> Oh heck, as long as we're rolling:
>

> http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen/bmas-helmet-stance-questioned...
>

"The evidence for the effectiveness of helmets is complex and
contradictory... "

[Dan O]

"Several researchers have been puzzled by the fact that, on the
one hand, studies have reported large protective effects of bicycle
helmets; on the other hand, studies of the effect of legislation that
has been associated with large increases in the rate of helmet wearing
have not always shown a clear decline in the number of head
injuries among cyclists."

[Duane]

To be clear, Canada does not have a helmet law. Some provinces do.
Some provinces don't. For example, Quebec has no helmet law. Ontario
has a mandatory helmet law for cyclists under 18. Not for adults.

They're talking about cyclists in Ontario under the age of 18. Not all
cyclists in Canada.

[Jay Beattie]

Decreased pedestrians and increased bicyclists? Better pedestrian
facilities? Bicyclists dying due to injuries other than head
injuries? Who knows. Tracking the two groups together is idiotic
since they are exposed to far different risks, except possibly while
crossing traffic -- and assuming that most pedestrians are not walking
at 20+ mph mixed in traffic.

As for increased concussions, helmets do not prevent most concussions,
and increased rates of concussions probably track increased numbers of
cyclists, and in particularly, MTB riders and others exposed to more
than the bike-trail, controlling the village lane level of risk.
Diagnostic criteria for concussion has also changed at least three
times in the last 20 or so years.

Statistically speaking, none of the bad things that have happened to
me should have happened. It sucks when you're on the wrong side of
the statistic -- just ask the guy who got whacked by a truck while
riding in a bike lane. According to you and the studies, he didn't
need to wear a helmet because, statistically speaking, he shouldn't
have gotten hit, and even if hit, he should not have suffered a head
injury.

http://bikeportland.org/2013/06/17/man-in-critical-condition-while-police-search-for-suspect-in-north-interstate-hit-and-run-88545

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

But how do you explain the increased number of potted plants since bike
helmets became popular? Or the alarming drop in the number of sperm
whales falling from space and landing on a bowl of petunias.

> As for increased concussions, helmets do not prevent most concussions,
> and increased rates of concussions probably track increased numbers of
> cyclists, and in particularly, MTB riders and others exposed to more
> than the bike-trail, controlling the village lane level of risk.
> Diagnostic criteria for concussion has also changed at least three
> times in the last 20 or so years.

If my head is going to smack the pavement, I would prefer that it was
wearing a helmet at the time.

> Statistically speaking, none of the bad things that have happened to
> me should have happened. It sucks when you're on the wrong side of
> the statistic -- just ask the guy who got whacked by a truck while
> riding in a bike lane. According to you and the studies, he didn't
> need to wear a helmet because, statistically speaking, he shouldn't
> have gotten hit, and even if hit, he should not have suffered a head
> injury.
>


> http://bikeportland.org/2013/06/17/man-in-critical-condition-while-police-search-for-suspect-in-north-interstate-hit-and-run-88545

Man, that's a particularly nasty little section of death trap. What's
the speed limit there?

[sms]

LOL. No it's not.

[sms]

On 6/18/2013 8:53 AM, Dan O wrote:

> "Several researchers have been puzzled by the fact that, on the
> one hand, studies have reported large protective effects of bicycle
> helmets; on the other hand, studies of the effect of legislation that
> has been associated with large increases in the rate of helmet wearing
> have not always shown a clear decline in the number of head
> injuries among cyclists."

Then they should not be classified as "researchers." The number of head
injuries is not based solely on the the rate of helmet wearing, it's
also based on the number of cyclists, the number of cars,
infrastructure, and other factors.

Despite claims by the anti-helmet crowd, cycling rates continued to
increase even in countries that passed mandatory helmet legislation.
Whether the cycling rates increased because of, or in spite of, the
legislation is immaterial. Yet you'll see proclamations like "look, a
helmet law passed and head injuries didn't go down, that must mean that
helmets don't work." Ignoring all the other factors is par for the course.

If there's one thing I could wish for it would be for the anti-helmet
activists to at least be honest when it comes to statistics, causation,
and correlation, but of course that's never going to happen because
doing so would invalidate their entire position.

[sms]

On 6/18/2013 10:08 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

> Decreased pedestrians and increased bicyclists? Better pedestrian
> facilities? Bicyclists dying due to injuries other than head
> injuries? Who knows. Tracking the two groups together is idiotic
> since they are exposed to far different risks, except possibly while
> crossing traffic -- and assuming that most pedestrians are not walking
> at 20+ mph mixed in traffic.

Do you have any explanation for the fact that as mortgage interest rates
have fallen pedestrian fatalities have also fallen? Is it that with less
money spent on mortgage interest former pedestrians are buying bicycles
and cars, or taking the bus?

[Duane]

Or maybe less people can afford cars so there is less danger for the
pedestrians and bikes have nothing to do with it. Myriad possibilities.
Pick one that suits your agenda.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding the anti-helmet stuff going on here.

Studies have shown that in-town commuters who generally average something like 5 mph and do not use clipless pedals do not gain an advantage by using helmets.

So what? Are we simple commuters? Most of those on these groups are serious cyclists who average more like 14-15 mph, and higher on flat rides.

As someone who has suffered badly from a head injury I can tell you it's no fun. Imagine waking up one day to be told two years has gone by? And during that time you got into all sorts of troubles such as DUI to four car wrecks during seizures to selling your entire collection of bicycle, clothing etc. Imagine not being able to remember when and where your father or mother died? The fine details of what you did for a living? Your friends and your riding group names.

But you have to be able to tell the difference between types of head injuries.

The first type and the kind that helmets have been developed to prevent and for which I have no trouble whatsoever believing at least an 85% prevention rate is skull fractures.

The problem is that when helmets were initially developed the real effects of concussions and how such injuries were obtained weren't well known.

So what we're seeing now is that the worse kind of head injuries are in fact being almost completely prevented by helmets and each year they get better for this type of injuries.

Yet the lesser but still very serious kind of injuries are not much effected by present day helmets. Helmets to lessen the effects of concussions CAN be constructed but workable ways of doing it are still in development.

If you don't want to wear a helmet that's fine. But by all means leave a will stating that you willingly rode without a helmet as a protect against those helmet Nazis.

[Duane]

On 6/18/2013 3:22 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding the anti-helmet stuff going on here.
>
> Studies have shown that in-town commuters who generally average something like 5 mph and do not use clipless pedals do not gain an advantage by using helmets.
>
> So what? Are we simple commuters? Most of those on these groups are serious cyclists who average more like 14-15 mph, and higher on flat rides.

I think that you will find a large percentage of the people who are AHZs
are not the ones pushing the limits. - I won't say they're not serious
cyclists because there are a lot of commuters out there that are as
serious as anyone else.

> As someone who has suffered badly from a head injury I can tell you it's no fun. Imagine waking up one day to be told two years has gone by? And during that time you got into all sorts of troubles such as DUI to four car wrecks during seizures to selling your entire collection of bicycle, clothing etc. Imagine not being able to remember when and where your father or mother died? The fine details of what you did for a living? Your friends and your riding group names.
>
> But you have to be able to tell the difference between types of head injuries.
>
> The first type and the kind that helmets have been developed to prevent and for which I have no trouble whatsoever believing at least an 85% prevention rate is skull fractures.
>
> The problem is that when helmets were initially developed the real effects of concussions and how such injuries were obtained weren't well known.
>
> So what we're seeing now is that the worse kind of head injuries are in fact being almost completely prevented by helmets and each year they get better for this type of injuries.
>
> Yet the lesser but still very serious kind of injuries are not much effected by present day helmets. Helmets to lessen the effects of concussions CAN be constructed but workable ways of doing it are still in development.
>
> If you don't want to wear a helmet that's fine. But by all means leave a will stating that you willingly rode without a helmet as a protect against those helmet Nazis.

Good post.

[Frank Krygowski]

> As for increased concussions, helmets do not prevent most concussions...

Ah. Perhaps you, too, happened on this recent article, noting an
_increase_ in boxing concussions following helmet mandates:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2293803/Headgear-boxers-banned-bid-REDUCE-head-injuries.html

Can we agree, then, that fear of concussion does not justify bike
helmet promotion?

And, if that's agreed, can you please explain why on earth they should
be promoted?

> and increased rates of concussions probably track increased numbers of
> cyclists, and in particularly, MTB riders and others exposed to more
> than the bike-trail, controlling the village lane level of risk.
> Diagnostic criteria for concussion has also changed at least three
> times in the last 20 or so years.
>
> Statistically speaking, none of the bad things that have happened to
> me should have happened.  It sucks when you're on the wrong side of
> the statistic -- just ask the guy who got whacked by a truck while
> riding in a bike lane. According to you and the studies, he didn't
> need to wear a helmet because, statistically speaking, he shouldn't
> have gotten hit, and even if hit, he should not have suffered a head
> injury.

Using your logic, statistically speaking, none of the 4000 or so
pedestrians who die every year should need to wear a helmet. Neither
should any of the 35,000 or so motorists. Yet most of both camps did
die of brain injury. (And we really should stop conflating the terms
"head injury" and "brain injury." They are not the same, and the
conflation is often a deliberate attempt to "dangerize" bicycling.)

I've previously posted links to the Philips Report on brain injury in
Ireland, which treated four groups in detail: Motorists,
motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists. So which group had the
fewest and the mildest brain injuries of the four? Bicyclists, of
course. It wasn't even close.

I've also linked to Pucher's data showing that the per-mile fatality
rate for U.S. pedestrians is more than triple that for bicyclists.
And a greater percentage of those pedestrian fatalities are due to
brain injury than for cyclists.

In response to this, you proclaim that comparing the groups is
"idiotic." I'd say that's a quick, easy, and transparently
unsuccessful argument. It' amounts to saying "Just because!!!"

You may be feeling frustrated that you can't come up with a truly
logical way to justify your discriminatory attitude against cyclists,
but that shouldn't lead you to simple minded insults. If you can't
explain why the activity with far less risk requires protection, yet
the activities with far more risk don't require protection, it may be
best to explain to yourself that your position is at least weak, if
not untenable.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 18, 1:24 pm, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/2013 1:08 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > On Jun 17, 9:30 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >

> >> Do you have an explanation for the fact that pedestrian fatalities
> >> have dropped far faster than bicyclist fatalities since bike helmets
> >> became popular?
>
> > Decreased pedestrians and increased bicyclists? Better pedestrian
> > facilities? Bicyclists dying due to injuries other than head
> > injuries?  Who knows.  Tracking the two groups together is idiotic
> > since they are exposed to far different risks, except possibly while
> > crossing traffic -- and assuming that most pedestrians are not walking
> > at 20+ mph mixed in traffic.
>
> But how do you explain the increased number of potted plants since bike
> helmets became popular?  Or the alarming drop in the number of sperm
> whales falling from space and landing on a bowl of petunias.

The difference, of course, is that there was _supposed_ to be an
inverse correlation between concussions (and worse brain injuries) and
helmet wearing. That is how helmets have been sold since the 1970s.
That's why helmets have been mandated in many jurisdictions.

We're seeing more and more evidence that in the real world, that
inverse correlation simply does not exist. Or to put it in less
mathematical terms, the money, emphasis, and enforcement spent on
helmets has been wasted.

Worse than wasted, actually, because it's saddled ordinary bicycling
with an unjustified reputation for danger. That's now manifesting
itself in other discriminatory actions by officials, and other
nonsensical pleas from so-called bike advocates.

Why are so many here so willing to argue against cyclists' rights?
Why are so many so eager to vilify those who experience bicycling as a
normal mode of transportation, requiring only normal equipment and
facilities? Are you really _that_ attached to your fancy hat?

- Frank Krygowski

[Joe Riel]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> writes:

> I've previously posted links to the Philips Report on brain injury in
> Ireland, which treated four groups in detail: Motorists,
> motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists. So which group had the
> fewest and the mildest brain injuries of the four? Bicyclists, of
> course. It wasn't even close.

Why would that be? One possibility is that, unlike the other categories
(not quite true for pedesterian, but...), cyclists have roughly two
distinct modes of getting injured: falling off the bike or getting
whacked by a car. I expect that the brain injury rate, per incident,
for pedestrians and cyclists getting whacked by a car are similar. If
most cyclists' brain injuries are due to falling off, then those
presumably less serious injuries would dominate the statistics.

Speculating...

--
Joe Riel

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 18, 3:22 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding the anti-helmet stuff going on here.

Well, perhaps you're coming to the discussion a bit late. Have you
read the article in the current _Bicycling_ magazine, mentioning the
increase in concussions with helmet use? Are you aware that the per-
remaining-cyclist brain injury and fatality rates have been seen to
_rise_ when all-ages helmet laws have been implemented and enforced?
Are you aware that (contrary to what "sms" claims) those laws caused
simultaneous and sudden step decreases in the amount of cycling, on
the order of 35%? And are you aware that the risk of brain injury
from cycling is tiny, actually far less (per mile) than that of
walking? Do you understand that bicyclists make up only about 0.6% of
the brain injury fatalities in the U.S.?

> Studies have shown that in-town commuters who generally average something like 5 mph and do not use clipless pedals do not gain an advantage by using helmets.
>
> So what? Are we simple commuters? Most of those on these groups are serious cyclists who average more like 14-15 mph, and higher on flat rides.

For what it's worth: If the helmet propaganda suddenly changed to say
"Enthusiastic mountain bikers and performance-oriented road riders
should wear helmets," I'd consider that still mistaken, but a great
improvement. That's not the spiel, though. Helmet pushers claim that
_everybody_ should wear a helmet every time they ride, even the
"simple commuters," the bike path cruisers, and the kids riding to
their friend's house just 100 yards away.

> As someone who has suffered badly from a head injury I can tell you it's no fun.

I don't doubt that. And yet, the vast majority of serious brain
injuries (let's distinguish those from "head injuries," OK?) have
absolutely nothing to do with bicycling.

As I've mentioned in the distant past, I happened to do a ride with a
young woman whose career was brain injury rehabilitation. She'd been
working at that field full time for seven years. Of course, she
absolutely recommended bike helmets for every ride. But when I asked
about the sources of brain injury in the many patients she'd treated
for many years, she admitted that only ONE was a bicyclist; and "he
was a racer" - meaning, it's extremely likely that he was wearing a
helmet when he was injured.

The special connection between cycling and serious brain injury is
simply fictional. Any dispassionate look at the data, at the source
of brain injury, will show this. Bicycling has _never_ been a
significant source of serious brain injury.

(BTW, we hosted a touring cyclist last night. He rode without a
helmet, and sort of apologized for it, so the subject came up. So I
asked him what percentage of America's head injury fatalities happen
to bicyclists. His guess, like many others I've heard, was "30%?" He
was off by a factor of 50. Again, the correct answer is only 0.6%.

>
> But you have to be able to tell the difference between types of head injuries.
>
> The first type and the kind that helmets have been developed to prevent and for which I have no trouble whatsoever believing at least an 85% prevention rate is skull fractures.

You don't seem to be aware that the "85%" paper (now nearly 25 years
old and _still_ uncorroborated!) was not dealing with skull
fractures. The authors, Thompson & Rivara, classed any injury at all
above the neck as a "head injury." Cut ears were literally listed as
"head injuries" - and indeed, there were fewer scratches to ears in
the kids whose parents had been scared into slapping helmets on them.

That's partly why I say it's time to stop conflating "head injury" and
"brain injury." It's the latter that people are scared of, and the
latter that have caused misled legislators to pass mandatory helmet
laws. It's also the latter that still scare people away from riding
at all.

> The problem is that when helmets were initially developed the real effects of concussions and how such injuries were obtained weren't well known.
>
> So what we're seeing now is that the worse kind of head injuries are in fact being almost completely prevented by helmets and each year they get better for this type of injuries.

Both parts of that sentence are patently false. The worse kind of
head injuries are fatalities; yet despite the tremendous growth in
helmet use since 1980, bike fatalities have not fallen even as fast as
pedestrian fatalities in the U.S. There's no epidemiological evidence
that bike helmets have had any significant effect on bike fatalities -
not surprising, since helmets are certified using only a ludicrously
simple impact test of a disembodied solid magnesium head at just 14
mph.

Furthermore, Paul Scuffham's research team examined the hospital
records of essentially every hospitalized cyclist in his country of
New Zealand, in the years before and immediately after the sudden
surge (up to 90%) in helmet use caused by their impending helmet law.
His research was specifically designed to prove that the percentage
admitted to hospital due to brain injuries would have dropped
sharply. Instead he found the opposite: the great surge in helmet use
had zero detectable benefit. Seems that helmets don't prevent TBI
hospitalizations, either.

Regarding the second part of the sentence, helmets are NOT getting
better at protecting against serious injuries. As the _Bicycling_
magazine pointed out, the helmet standards are ludicrously weak, and
completely static. There is no improvement going on in standards, and
almost all manufacturers are too nervous to do anything innovative.
Instead, what they do (for especially the most expensive, "sporty"
helmets) is shave more and more material, to reduce weight and
increase ventilation while still _barely_ passing the simple 6 foot
drop test and other tests. (Consumer Reports has, over the years,
made it pretty clear that cheap helmets are actually more protective
than expensive ones.)

> Yet the lesser but still very serious kind of injuries are not much effected by present day helmets. Helmets to lessen the effects of concussions CAN be constructed but workable ways of doing it are still in development.

Please, _do_ spread the word on that "not much affected" part! I'd
bet that almost all helmets are bought in the belief that they will
prevent concussion, save lives, or both. They're also bought because
people think simply riding a bike is so horribly dangerous. The
propagandists have done their jobs well, but all those ideas are
false.

> If you don't want to wear a helmet that's fine. But by all means leave a will stating that you willingly rode without a helmet as a protect against those helmet Nazis.

Let's reiterate: In the U.S., roughly 99.4% of brain injury deaths
have nothing at all to do with bicycling. If you're going to make
snarky remarks about those who choose to ride as almost all the
world's cyclists have always ridden and still ride - that is, without
funny foam hats - please snark equally at the other 99.4%, OK?

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 18, 4:22 pm, Joe Riel <j...@san.rr.com> wrote:

I don't know exactly why it comes out that way. The report did not
give those sorts of details on the mechanism of injuries.

It did give coarse information on the general sources. I've commented
here only on the road users (motorists, motorcyclists, walkers and
cyclists). But compared to road users, about three times as many were
brain injured in "Falls" and about twice as many were brain injured in
"Home."

BTW, I hadn't reviewed that report in over a year. Checking just now,
I see I was mistaken on one point: There were more bicyclist TBIs
than motorcyclist. However, the great majority (76%) of bicyclists
had "mild" TBI. Only 51% of motorist TBIs were "mild," only 31% of
motorcyclists', and only 46% of pedestrians. (Others were listed as
"moderate" or "severe," using the Glasgow Coma Scale.)

So once again, by any unbiased interpretation, the bicyclists were
safer than the pedestrians.

Oh, and they too found no statistical benefit from helmet use. "...
no statistical difference is [sic] injury was proven for either pedal
or motorcyclists."

Sorry, guys.

- Frank Krygowski

[Jay Beattie]

> _increase_ in boxing concussions following helmet mandates:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2293803/Headgear-boxers-ban...

>
> Can we agree, then, that fear of concussion does not justify bike
> helmet promotion?
>
> And, if that's agreed, can you please explain why on earth they should
> be promoted?

Prevention of skull fracture, scalp injury and focal brain injury --
risks not generally associated with boxing.

Remember 10 or 12 years ago when we had this argument that I mentioned
boxing helmets, and my "helmet expert" (who was doing the research at
the time) said that they were a problem because of rotational injury?
The deal is that they act as a target, and when you land a punch, you
spin the guy's head around. Most cyclists are not dodging punches.

I'm not insulting you -- I'm insulting the whole MHL-paranoid cabal
that keeps tying bicycling to walking, gardening, showering, etc.,
etc. You simply prove that helmets might benefit walkers, gardeners
and bathers. And the last time I checked, I haven't taken a shower
while moving at >50mph, although I have gone that fast in a rain
shower.

From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets help prevent injury.
http://tinyurl.com/lwbjt2e

If all I did was roll around on some 'fiet on the bike roads in
Amsterdam, I wouldn't bother with a helmet. Regrettably, I am exposed
to additional dangers and have made the decision to wear a helmet,
particularly since it has prevented injuries in the past.

-- Jay Beattie.

[James]

Haven't seen it. Is there a link? Is it on line?

> Do you have an explanation for the fact that pedestrian fatalities
> have dropped far faster than bicyclist fatalities since bike helmets
> became popular?

I don't see how the two are related.

I did hear the other day of an airbag that deploys in front of a car
wind screen such that any pedestrians you scoop up on the bonnet get a
nice pillow to rest on instead of hard glass.

I also know that car design is continually modified to improve the
chances of not killing a pedestrian - should one step out in front of
your moving motor car.

In this country, there have also been changes in recent years to lower
the speed limits around schools and suburban streets (to 40 kph around
schools, and 50 kph in small streets).

Nothing to do with people wearing bicycle helmets as far as I can see.

--
JS

[James]

On 19/06/13 07:27, Jay Beattie wrote:

> Prevention of skull fracture, scalp injury and focal brain injury --
> risks not generally associated with boxing.
>
> Remember 10 or 12 years ago when we had this argument that I mentioned
> boxing helmets, and my "helmet expert" (who was doing the research at
> the time) said that they were a problem because of rotational injury?
> The deal is that they act as a target, and when you land a punch, you
> spin the guy's head around. Most cyclists are not dodging punches.

Heck, it feels like it though, at times. Or maybe it's more like
dodging bullets..

--
JS

[Sir Ridesalot]

Frank.

You don't want to wear any protective gear - that's fine but do not say that everyone who chooses to wear a helmet or who does not take the lane "Why are so many here so willing to argue against cyclists' rights?

Why are so many so eager to vilify those who experience bicycling as a
normal mode of transportation, requiring only normal equipment and
facilities?"

In doing so you yourself Vilify those who do use safety gear for whatever reason they do.

My experiments with the helmet and the melons show that some protection was given to the melon - enough protection in fact that the melon didn't split apart. Now if you and others want to ride helmetless that's your right. If others want to wear a helmet for the protection that the helmet provides then tthat's their right too.

Comparing bicycling with a helmet to other activities is not relevant as far as I'm concerned because of a number of reasons i'm not going to be bothered getting into.

Cheers

[sms]

On 6/18/2013 12:22 PM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding the anti-helmet stuff going on here.
>
> Studies have shown

LOL, one of the first things students if critical thinking courses learn
is that if someone starts a paragraph with "studies show" then in
reality it's highly unlikely that "studies show" any such thing.

[sms]

On 6/18/2013 10:08 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

> Decreased pedestrians and increased bicyclists? Better pedestrian
> facilities? Bicyclists dying due to injuries other than head
> injuries? Who knows. Tracking the two groups together is idiotic
> since they are exposed to far different risks, except possibly while
> crossing traffic -- and assuming that most pedestrians are not walking
> at 20+ mph mixed in traffic.

Actually that whole pedestrian helmet, gardening helmet, showering
helmet, etc. schtick, along with trying to compare groups that have no
connection, is rather useful _because_ it's idiotic as you so eloquently
stated. It immediately conveys the message that the person making those
arguments has given up on creating a coherent case for their position
and has descended to the depths of despair.

[Radey Shouman]

Tracking the two groups makes pretty good sense to me, but I've been
called an idiot before.

It's easy to get the impression that no one in r.b.t actually walks
anywhere for transportation. I do, and have easily had more close calls
when walking than when bicycling -- granted that I have never competed
in a cycling (or walking) competition, nor am likely to.

The most significant risk is the same for both cyclists and pedestrians:
drivers who don't see them, and run them over. Pedestrians do mix in
traffic, at closely spaced intersections in urban areas, and by the
sides of roadways in rural and suburban areas. When you're actually
walking to get somewhere, crossing traffic happens all the time.

3 or 20+ mph? What difference does it make if you're run over by
someone doing 75?

[Dan]

http://www.occup-med.com/content/7/1/9

[sms]

On 6/18/2013 6:55 PM, Dan wrote:

<snip>

>> LOL. No it's not.
>
> http://www.occup-med.com/content/7/1/9

The conclusion certainly seems to state there there is a benefit to
helmet usage.

In fact there is not a single peer reviewed study in existence that does
not conclude that helmets are effective in reducing the severity of head
injuries in head impact crashes, and not even the most virulent AHZ
disagrees with this. Their position is based on a collection of
fallacies, myths, and junk science, but they don't deny that helmeted
cyclists fare better in head impact crashes than non-helmeted cyclists.

[Dan]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> writes:

<snip>

>
> You may be feeling frustrated that you can't come up with a truly
> logical way to justify your discriminatory attitude against cyclists,
> but that shouldn't lead you to simple minded insults. If you can't
> explain why the activity with far less risk requires protection, yet
> the activities with far more risk don't require protection, it may be
> best to explain to yourself that your position is at least weak, if
> not untenable.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

"Heck", *now* we're rolling! ;-)

[Dan]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> writes:

> On 6/18/2013 6:55 PM, Dan wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> LOL. No it's not.
>>
>> http://www.occup-med.com/content/7/1/9
>
> The conclusion certainly seems to state there there is a benefit to
> helmet usage.
>

"... a relative protection of head and brain is stated as secured."

http://www.occup-med.com/content/7/1/9/figure/F1

(Heh - "... affective disorders" :-)

<snip>

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:27:03 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:

> On Jun 18, 1:02 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > Ah. Perhaps you, too, happened on this recent article, noting an
>
> > _increase_ in boxing concussions following helmet mandates:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2293803/Headgear-boxers-ban...
>
> >
>
> > Can we agree, then, that fear of concussion does not justify bike
>
> > helmet promotion?
>
> >
>
> > And, if that's agreed, can you please explain why on earth they should
>
> > be promoted?
>
>
>
> Prevention of skull fracture, scalp injury and focal brain injury --
>
> risks not generally associated with boxing.

But all those injuries, and more, _are_ associated with pedestrians and with motor vehicle occupants. In fact, they are much more common, and on average more serious, than among bicyclists.

The bare fact is that cycling, at least in any ordinary way, is a low risk activity, with risk lower even than walking. How can it then be logical to strongly recommend or even mandate head protection for a lower risk activity, but to ignore it for an activity that's much more common and much more risky? That strategy can't be justified based on either relative risk to the individual or cost to society.

>
>
>
> Remember 10 or 12 years ago when we had this argument that I mentioned
>
> boxing helmets, and my "helmet expert" (who was doing the research at
>
> the time) said that they were a problem because of rotational injury?

Well, no, I don't remember. But go on.

> The deal is that they act as a target, and when you land a punch, you
>
> spin the guy's head around. Most cyclists are not dodging punches.

True. Most cyclists are never hitting their head in any way. And indeed, it's complete fiction that most cyclists are going to eventually get brain injured if they don't wear a helmet. Again, any unbiased look at brain injury (or even true "head injury") sources shows this.

It's still a simple minded insult, Jay. I (and many others) have provided indicators of relative risk, data showing that cycling is not unusually dangerous regarding brain injury. You and some others persist in saying, in effect, "It doesn't matter if bicycling is very safe, you must still wear protection!" or perhaps "I don't believe the professionally collected data, and I don't have any data that counters it; I just believe what I already believe!" How are those attitudes logical?

> You simply prove that helmets might benefit walkers, gardeners
>
> and bathers. And the last time I checked, I haven't taken a shower
>
> while moving at >50mph, although I have gone that fast in a rain
>
> shower.

To be clear, the comparison with gardeners did not mention brain injury; the poll that showed more injuries for gardeners than for cyclists was talking about any and all types of injury. I've given the citation many times, you can read the paper for yourself.

I don't recall any data for people taking showers, although those injuries are doubtlessly included in the "falls in the home" category of some brain injury counts.

But in case by "bathers" you meant the archaic term for swimmers, then yes; swimming is much more dangerous than cycling per hour. And the detail mode of death from drowning can be considered brain damage, IIRC. So few calls for mandatory water wings, though!

> From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets help prevent injury.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lwbjt2e

Yes, that's been discussed in other forums. Apparently nobody discussing it has seen the full paper yet (and that journal isn't available in my academic library system) so there's much speculation going on. But comments that have been made are that the impact surface does not appear to have anything close to the characteristics of asphalt. Also, there does not seem to be any comparison with the real-world alternative target, which would be a smaller diameter bare head, armed with evolutionary reflexes to protect it from any impact; and with that head being naturally protected from angular acceleration by a low-friction head of hair plus a loosely attached scalp, "designed" to tear and expose even lower friction (albeit very messy) tissue beneath.

> If all I did was roll around on some 'fiet on the bike roads in
>
> Amsterdam, I wouldn't bother with a helmet. Regrettably, I am exposed
>
> to additional dangers and have made the decision to wear a helmet,
>
> particularly since it has prevented injuries in the past.

Of course, I've ridden many of the places you ride, although obviously not nearly as often. But somehow, somehow, I've survived. Go figure!

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 6:02:41 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
> On 18/06/13 14:30, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > On Jun 17, 6:24 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> A helmet won't protect from every impact but they can help a lot.
>
> >
>
> > I understand your faith.
>
>
>
> I understand your faith.

James, do you understand that I used to be pro helmet? What changed my mind was detailed examination of data on relative risk, and discussions (starting here, actually) that led me to critically examine the pro- and con- papers on helmet effects.

That process shouldn't be labeled "faith." Most people call that sort of thing "science."

>
>
>
> > But do you have an explanation for the fact (noted in the recent
>
> > Bicycling magazine article) that bicyclist concussions have increased
>
> > tremendously since helmets became popular?
>
>
>
> Haven't seen it. Is there a link? Is it on line?

The online version is, unfortunately, much abbreviated. But you can see it at http://www.bicycling.com/node/4740/32152#comment-32152

I don't know of a place to find the full text version online. The author has given talks on the subject, however, and those may be available online.

> > Do you have an explanation for the fact that pedestrian fatalities
>
> > have dropped far faster than bicyclist fatalities since bike helmets
>
> > became popular?
>
> I don't see how the two are related.

Here's how: Pedestrians and cyclists are subject to very similar risks. In fact the number of TBI fatalities are much higher for pedestrians than for bicyclists (for those making "cost to society" arguments). Both groups' fatalities are almost entirely caused by automobiles, most often through TBI. Both groups have benefited from improvements in trauma care and ER techniques, which probably explains the consistent downward trend in their fatalities. But there is no discernible additional benefit due to increased helmet use by cyclists. During the time helmet use took off, pedestrian deaths still dropped as fast or faster than those of bicyclists. This has been going on since 1980, at least. Thus, it seems hundreds of tales that "I would have been dead without my helmet" are false; there are no missing deaths in the data.

> In this country, there have also been changes in recent years to lower
>
> the speed limits around schools and suburban streets (to 40 kph around
>
> schools, and 50 kph in small streets).

Good ideas, in my book. I'd like to see 30 kph in residential streets. Why not? Time cost to motorists would be negligible, and it would civilize streets in many ways.

> Nothing to do with people wearing bicycle helmets as far as I can see.

... during their entire lives!

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

I'm curious - did you _really_ do that test? Since helmets are supposed to be tossed out after any impact, testing very many helmets that way would be a bit expensive.

> Now if you and others want to ride helmetless that's your right. If others want to wear a helmet for the protection that the helmet provides then tthat's their right too.

I'm glad you agree it should be a right to ride without a helmet. Of course, there are many others who do not feel that way. The evidence is in the mandatory helmet laws and rules.

FWIW, I'm not aware of anyone ever working to make helmet wearing illegal. It's too bad the reverse is not true.

> Comparing bicycling with a helmet to other activities is not relevant as far as I'm concerned because of a number of reasons i'm not going to be bothered getting into.

It's an attempt to explain relative risk. Most people get it, in my experience.

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:22:01 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
> On 6/18/2013 6:55 PM, Dan wrote:
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >> LOL. No it's not.
>
> >
>
> > http://www.occup-med.com/content/7/1/9
>
>
>
> The conclusion certainly seems to state there there is a benefit to
>
> helmet usage.
>
>
>
> In fact there is not a single peer reviewed study in existence that does
>
> not conclude that helmets are effective in reducing the severity of head
>
> injuries in head impact crashes, and not even the most virulent AHZ
>
> disagrees with this.

You are flat wrong. You need to read more on this topic.

Try, for just one example, Scuffham, P.A. et. al., "Trends in Cycling Injuries in New Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet Use" 1997, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 29, No. 1

They found no detectable benefit. I've posted details about this before, but you (of course) refuse to read the paper.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jun 18, 1:24 pm, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
>> On 6/18/2013 1:08 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 17, 9:30 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Do you have an explanation for the fact that pedestrian fatalities
>> >> have dropped far faster than bicyclist fatalities since bike helmets
>> >> became popular?
>>
>> > Decreased pedestrians and increased bicyclists? Better pedestrian
>> > facilities? Bicyclists dying due to injuries other than head
>> > injuries?  Who knows.  Tracking the two groups together is idiotic
>> > since they are exposed to far different risks, except possibly while
>> > crossing traffic -- and assuming that most pedestrians are not walking
>> > at 20+ mph mixed in traffic.
>>
>> But how do you explain the increased number of potted plants since bike
>> helmets became popular?  Or the alarming drop in the number of sperm
>> whales falling from space and landing on a bowl of petunias.
>
> The difference, of course, is that there was _supposed_ to be an
> inverse correlation between concussions (and worse brain injuries) and
> helmet wearing. That is how helmets have been sold since the 1970s.
> That's why helmets have been mandated in many jurisdictions.
>

"... four years after the introduction of helmet legislation
in Alberta... helmet prevalence... changed from... 52% to 55%
among adults."

> We're seeing more and more evidence that in the real world, that
> inverse correlation simply does not exist. Or to put it in less
> mathematical terms, the money, emphasis, and enforcement spent on
> helmets has been wasted.
>

I don't believe there has been enforcement. (We know how you feel
about the "emphasis".)

As for money, well, I don't feel the money I have spent on helmets
has been wasted. I would very much like to spend a lot more, and
would hope that what it buys is never used. Is that a "waste"?

If you're talking about public money, it's still just your opinion
(take your crackpot spiel to Washington), and IMO they waste *way*
more money on much less worthy endeavors.

> Worse than wasted, actually, because it's saddled ordinary bicycling
> with an unjustified reputation for danger. That's now manifesting
> itself in other discriminatory actions by officials, and other
> nonsensical pleas from so-called bike advocates.
>
> Why are so many here so willing to argue against cyclists' rights?
> Why are so many so eager to vilify those who experience bicycling as a
> normal mode of transportation, requiring only normal equipment and
> facilities? Are you really _that_ attached to your fancy hat?
>
> - Frank Krygowski

You know that thing you do that makes people not like you? You're doing
it again.

[Dan]

Link to full text, please?

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-18-2013 23:07, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >My experiments with the helmet and the melons show that some protection was given to the melon - enough protection in fact that the melon didn't split apart.

> I'm curious - did you_really_ do that test? Since helmets are supposed to be tossed out after any impact, testing very many helmets that way would be a bit expensive.

What if he used the same helmet in every test? If it provided some
protection on the second test, that is in spite of the alleged need
to discard it.

I have performed my own experiments: I have crashed eight times.
Two of those crashes required wheel replacement; one required
bike replacement. One sent me to E.R. Two resulted in lots of blood.
But in none of them was there an impact to skull or helmet.

YMMV

Data is not the prural of anecdote.

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-18-2013 15:22, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Studies have shown that in-town commuters who generally average something like 5 mph and do not use clipless pedals do not gain an advantage by using helmets.

Five MPH ?!? ‽ If I want to go below ten, I can't do it without the
assistance of a hill !

[James]

On 19/06/13 13:02, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 6:02:41 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
>> On 18/06/13 14:30, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 17, 6:24 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> A helmet won't protect from every impact but they can help a
>>>> lot.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I understand your faith.
>>
>>
>>
>> I understand your faith.
>
> James, do you understand that I used to be pro helmet? What changed
> my mind was detailed examination of data on relative risk, and
> discussions (starting here, actually) that led me to critically
> examine the pro- and con- papers on helmet effects.
>
> That process shouldn't be labeled "faith." Most people call that
> sort of thing "science."

I thought most people called that statistics.

You have faith that you will not be the next victim of a negligent
driver, or broken fork, or ice, or wet leaves, or oil on the road, etc.

That's fine, and you have the statistics on your side to help you with
your faith.

--
JS

[sms]

You have to pay.

But in any case, that paper does not examine the severity of head
injuries in helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclists in the event of head
impact crashes. It is a statistical analysis of hospital admissions
before and after the helmet law took effect. Another example of the
inability to distinguish between causation and correlation, and the
failure to examine other factors besides helmet usage.

As I stated, there is not a single peer reviewed study in existence that

does not conclude that helmets are effective in reducing the severity of

head injuries in head impact crashes. If there was one, the AHZs would
certainly have found it by now.

[Dan]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jun 18, 3:22 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding the anti-helmet stuff going on here.
>
> Well, perhaps you're coming to the discussion a bit late. Have you
> read the article in the current _Bicycling_ magazine, mentioning the
> increase in concussions with helmet use? Are you aware that the per-
> remaining-cyclist brain injury and fatality rates have been seen to
> _rise_ when all-ages helmet laws have been implemented and enforced?

I got home from work today - really wiped out. Walking into the
bedroom, I bumped my head on the hard shell helmet hanging from a
hook on the door.. "Ouch!" Helmets cause head injuries!

> Are you aware that (contrary to what "sms" claims) those laws caused
> simultaneous and sudden step decreases in the amount of cycling, on
> the order of 35%?

That must be how you got to an *increase* in head injuries - fudging
the numbers 35% or so.

> And are you aware that the risk of brain injury
> from cycling is tiny, actually far less (per mile) than that of
> walking? Do you understand that bicyclists make up only about 0.6% of
> the brain injury fatalities in the U.S.?
>

If we look at all brain injury fatalities, then add up all the
exposure to all the activities that resulted in them, what percentage
will cycling be of that total exposure? (Careful - trick question.)

>> Studies have shown that in-town commuters who generally average something like 5 mph and do not use clipless pedals do not gain an advantage by using helmets.
>>
>> So what? Are we simple commuters? Most of those on these groups are serious cyclists who average more like 14-15 mph, and higher on flat rides.
>
> For what it's worth: If the helmet propaganda suddenly changed to say
> "Enthusiastic mountain bikers and performance-oriented road riders
> should wear helmets," I'd consider that still mistaken, but a great
> improvement. That's not the spiel, though. Helmet pushers claim that
> _everybody_ should wear a helmet every time they ride, even the
> "simple commuters," the bike path cruisers, and the kids riding to
> their friend's house just 100 yards away.
>

All kids whould wear a helmet for every bike ride.

>> As someone who has suffered badly from a head injury I can tell you it's no fun.
>
> I don't doubt that. And yet, the vast majority of serious brain
> injuries (let's distinguish those from "head injuries," OK?) have
> absolutely nothing to do with bicycling.
>

And that fact has what to do with... oh - you're arguing against
*mandatory* helmet laws again. Well, please stick to that, and
please don't argue it by being anti-helmet. Let's hear it - just
four little words (you know what they are).

> As I've mentioned in the distant past, I happened to do a ride with a
> young woman whose career was brain injury rehabilitation. She'd been
> working at that field full time for seven years. Of course, she
> absolutely recommended bike helmets for every ride. But when I asked
> about the sources of brain injury in the many patients she'd treated
> for many years, she admitted that only ONE was a bicyclist; and "he
> was a racer" - meaning, it's extremely likely that he was wearing a
> helmet when he was injured.
>

So did she come around to your side? (I doubt it.)

> The special connection between cycling and serious brain injury is
> simply fictional. Any dispassionate look at the data, at the source
> of brain injury, will show this. Bicycling has _never_ been a
> significant source of serious brain injury.
>

So what?

> (BTW, we hosted a touring cyclist last night. He rode without a
> helmet, and sort of apologized for it, so the subject came up. So I
> asked him what percentage of America's head injury fatalities happen
> to bicyclists. His guess, like many others I've heard, was "30%?" He
> was off by a factor of 50. Again, the correct answer is only 0.6%.
>

So you've got real life friends who are nearly as dense as your
imaginary foil "Fred".

>>
>> But you have to be able to tell the difference between types of head injuries.
>>
>> The first type and the kind that helmets have been developed to prevent and for which I have no trouble whatsoever believing at least an 85% prevention rate is skull fractures.
>
> You don't seem to be aware that the "85%" paper (now nearly 25 years
> old and _still_ uncorroborated!) was not dealing with skull
> fractures. The authors, Thompson & Rivara, classed any injury at all
> above the neck as a "head injury."

Why do you assume he's talking about T and R?

> Cut ears were literally listed as
> "head injuries" - and indeed, there were fewer scratches to ears in
> the kids whose parents had been scared into slapping helmets on them.
>

Well, that's good.

> That's partly why I say it's time to stop conflating "head injury" and
> "brain injury." It's the latter that people are scared of, and the
> latter that have caused misled legislators to pass mandatory helmet
> laws. It's also the latter that still scare people away from riding
> at all.
>

So all of here on rbt should stop scaring them? How?

>> The problem is that when helmets were initially developed the real effects of concussions and how such injuries were obtained weren't well known.
>>
>> So what we're seeing now is that the worse kind of head injuries are in fact being almost completely prevented by helmets and each year they get better for this type of injuries.
>
> Both parts of that sentence are patently false. The worse kind of
> head injuries are fatalities; yet despite the tremendous growth in
> helmet use since 1980, bike fatalities have not fallen even as fast as
> pedestrian fatalities in the U.S.

Which is correlated with the price of tea in China.

> There's no epidemiological evidence
> that bike helmets have had any significant effect on bike fatalities -
> not surprising, since helmets are certified using only a ludicrously
> simple impact test of a disembodied solid magnesium head at just 14
> mph.
>

And there's no evidence that the garlic around my neck isn't 100%
effective against vampires.

(Just what is "significant" in the context of death, anyway?)

> Furthermore, Paul Scuffham's research team examined the hospital
> records of essentially every hospitalized cyclist in his country of
> New Zealand, in the years before and immediately after the sudden
> surge (up to 90%) in helmet use caused by their impending helmet law.
> His research was specifically designed to prove that the percentage
> admitted to hospital due to brain injuries would have dropped
> sharply. Instead he found the opposite: the great surge in helmet use
> had zero detectable benefit. Seems that helmets don't prevent TBI
> hospitalizations, either.
>

"Seems" to you.

> Regarding the second part of the sentence, helmets are NOT getting
> better at protecting against serious injuries.

http://www.pocsports.com/

> As the _Bicycling_
> magazine pointed out, the helmet standards are ludicrously weak, and
> completely static. There is no improvement going on in standards, and
> almost all manufacturers are too nervous to do anything innovative.
> Instead, what they do (for especially the most expensive, "sporty"
> helmets) is shave more and more material, to reduce weight and
> increase ventilation while still _barely_ passing the simple 6 foot
> drop test and other tests. (Consumer Reports has, over the years,
> made it pretty clear that cheap helmets are actually more protective
> than expensive ones.)
>

You're off the rails, man.

>> Yet the lesser but still very serious kind of injuries are not much effected by present day helmets. Helmets to lessen the effects of concussions CAN be constructed but workable ways of doing it are still in development.
>
> Please, _do_ spread the word on that "not much affected" part!

I think he just did.

> I'd
> bet that almost all helmets are bought in the belief that they will
> prevent concussion, save lives, or both. They're also bought because
> people think simply riding a bike is so horribly dangerous. The
> propagandists have done their jobs well, but all those ideas are
> false.
>

I was going to say that I don't see any propagandists here, but...

Propaganda: The systematic propagation of a given doctrine or of
allegations reflecting its views and interests.

>> If you don't want to wear a helmet that's fine. But by all means leave a will stating that you willingly rode without a helmet as a protect against those helmet Nazis.
>
> Let's reiterate: In the U.S., roughly 99.4% of brain injury deaths
> have nothing at all to do with bicycling. If you're going to make
> snarky remarks about those who choose to ride as almost all the
> world's cyclists have always ridden and still ride - that is, without
> funny foam hats - please snark equally at the other 99.4%, OK?
>
> - Frank Krygowski

OK, Mr. Purple Pants.

[Jay Beattie]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:49:07 PM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:27:03 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 1:02 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

<snip>

> > Prevention of skull fracture, scalp injury and focal brain injury --
>
> >
>
> > risks not generally associated with boxing.
>
>
>
> But all those injuries, and more, _are_ associated with pedestrians and with motor vehicle occupants. In fact, they are much more common, and on average more serious, than among bicyclists.


> The bare fact is that cycling, at least in any ordinary way, is a low risk activity, with risk lower even than walking. How can it then be logical to strongly recommend or even mandate head protection for a lower risk activity, but to ignore it for an activity that's much more common and much more risky? That strategy can't be justified based on either relative risk to the individual or cost to society.

Who is talking about mandatory helmet laws, mandating helmets, etc., etc? Not me.

> True. Most cyclists are never hitting their head in any way.

Most cyclists who don't race, ride trails, ride in inclement weather including ice and snow. I've crashed and had my face sewn up and ruined helmets. I know from my injury distribution that if I hadn't been wearing a helmet, I would have at least lacerated my scalp. I don't know if the concussion would have been worsened without a helmet.

You persist in arguing averages and statistics in response to arguments regarding the protective effect of helmets and personal risk patterns. I don't care about averages. I'm not making public health decisions or advocating MHLs. The fact is that in a car, I have seat belts, airbags, safety glass, collapsing steering columns, reinforced pillars, etc., etc. On a bike, I've got gloves and a helmet. While walking, I'm not mixed in with fast moving traffic or moving fast myself. Your arguments are offensive and assume that I am utterly unfamiliar with my own risk patterns, as is everyone else on this NG.

<snip>

> > From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets help prevent injury.
>
> >
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/lwbjt2e
>
>
>
> Yes, that's been discussed in other forums. Apparently nobody discussing it has seen the full paper yet (and that journal isn't available in my academic library system) so there's much speculation going on. But comments that have been made are that the impact surface does not appear to have anything close to the characteristics of asphalt. Also, there does not seem to be any comparison with the real-world alternative target, which would be a smaller diameter bare head, armed with evolutionary reflexes to protect it from any impact; and with that head being naturally protected from angular acceleration by a low-friction head of hair plus a loosely attached scalp, "designed" to tear and expose even lower friction (albeit very messy) tissue beneath.

Smaller target? You pile drive in to the ground when you go OTB, and your head snaps to the right or left. It's not like you're going to miss the ground.

Hair is not low friction -- it gets stuck in asphalt and tears, along with the scalp. And yes, your scalp rips open or separates from the skull and has to be stapled back. All of this can be avoided by wearing a helmet.

>
>
>
> > If all I did was roll around on some 'fiet on the bike roads in
>
> >
>
> > Amsterdam, I wouldn't bother with a helmet. Regrettably, I am exposed
>
> >
>
> > to additional dangers and have made the decision to wear a helmet,
>
> >
>
> > particularly since it has prevented injuries in the past.
>
>
>
> Of course, I've ridden many of the places you ride, although obviously not nearly as often. But somehow, somehow, I've survived. Go figure!

You have ridden them in the snow or ice? In the dark? In a rainstorm and standing water a foot deep? How about three feet? http://tinyurl.com/lrc6syy I routinely ride 45-50mph down the street next to my house. My house is a mile from a trail system that is nothing but root pots, bushes and rocks. This road is like a sled run during the winter, and its a common part of my commute. http://tinyurl.com/m5gc2rc
Weekends involve fast riding with others. My riding patterns are considerably different from yours.

I don't care if you wear a helmet. I'm going to, except when I'm rolling to the store or puttering around a resort.

-- Jay Beattie.

[James]

On 19/06/13 14:54, Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:49:07 PM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:27:03 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 18, 1:02 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>> Prevention of skull fracture, scalp injury and focal brain injury
>>> --
>>
>>>
>>
>>> risks not generally associated with boxing.
>>
>>
>>
>> But all those injuries, and more, _are_ associated with pedestrians
>> and with motor vehicle occupants. In fact, they are much more
>> common, and on average more serious, than among bicyclists.
>
>
>> The bare fact is that cycling, at least in any ordinary way, is a
>> low risk activity, with risk lower even than walking. How can it
>> then be logical to strongly recommend or even mandate head
>> protection for a lower risk activity, but to ignore it for an
>> activity that's much more common and much more risky? That
>> strategy can't be justified based on either relative risk to the
>> individual or cost to society.
>
> Who is talking about mandatory helmet laws, mandating helmets, etc.,
> etc? Not me.

You are not the only one, but Frank seems to think anyone who wears a
helmet, for whatever reason, also agrees with and wants mandatory helmet
laws. It's one of his *things*. Then he likes to argue against, even
though you never mentioned it.

--
JS

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:46:44 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Jun 18, 3:22 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > As someone who has suffered badly from a head injury I can tell you it's no fun.
>
>
> I don't doubt that. And yet, the vast majority of serious brain
>
> injuries (let's distinguish those from "head injuries," OK?) have
>
> absolutely nothing to do with bicycling.

1. Any head injury could be "no fun", not only brain injuries. And it is especially head injuries that helmets are help to prevent. That's precisely why we want to discuss head injuries, see, Franki-boy? The reason you're so keen not to discuss head injuries is that we already know head injuries to cyclists are reduced by wearing helmets.

2. It is irrelevant that "the vast majority of serious brain injuries have absolutely nothing to do with bicycling." We're not interested in brain injuries that happen outside bicycling, which you, Franki-boy, constantly use as an excuse not to discuss brain injuries that happen to bicyclists. The reason you're so keen not to discuss brain injuries is that we already know brain injuries to cyclists are reduced by wearing helmets.

Stop blowing smoke, Franki-boy, and discuss the matters of interest to us as cyclists, head and brain injuries to "cyclists", and how helmets can help to prevent them, or piss off.

Andre Jute
Tired of Kreepy Krygowski's ducking and weaving and weaseling

[Sir Ridesalot]

Hi Jay.

My conclusion is that frank us steadfastly anti-helmet no matter what evidence anyone has that a helmet was beneficial to them. Back in 2010 I nade a post in this group about an accident that I had and that my head struck the paement very hard. I also stated that at the time of that accident I was very glad that I was wearing a helmet. Frank who was nowhere near the scene of that accident stated that I was "obviously" overstating things. Frank also stated that had I not been wearing the helmet that most likely my head would not have hit the pavement. Frank also stated that i would not be able to accurately determine if the force that my head struck the pavement with would have been sufficient to damage my head had I not been wearing a helmet. All that despite the fact that I'd said that it was my temple that would have struck the pavement HARD. Frank also went into the spiel of mandatory helmet laws which was something I'd never advocated is any of my posts at any time.

Cheers

[Duane Hébert]

And, at least for Canada, it seems that increased helmet use does not
coincide with lower cycling counts whether the helmet use is mandatory
or not. Sort of coincides with what I can see for myself.

[Duane]

I disagree. They usually haven't falling into the depths of despair.
They usually believe this crap completely as a basis for the one true
religion. Theirs. Desperate people deserve pity. Religious zealots do
not.

[Duane]

On 6/19/2013 12:54 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
<snip>

> Smaller target? You pile drive in to the ground when you go OTB, and your head snaps to the right or left. It's not like you're going to miss the ground.
>

Went down on my side last night. Head snapped to the right but I was not
going down hard enough to prevent me from stopping it. I will report
that the helmet did NOT cause me to hit my head. I would also say that
I wish my shoulder was wearing a helmet. That smarted.


<snip snip>

[Duane]

Sadly I wish that helmets helped prevent concussions. As a hockey fan
and a father of a son that plays hockey, it would make me happy if they
did. But cracked skulls can kill you. Or at least mess up a lovely day.
And helmets do help prevent those. That's why he's on about concussions
now. Just as he's always on about cycling fatalities which are not
indicative of general cycling injuries.

> Andre Jute
> Tired of Kreepy Krygowski's ducking and weaving and weaseling

Tired of him in general.

[Duane]

Curiously my initial contact with Frank was almost exactly the same as
yours. I had fallen and cracked my helmet. I said that I was glad that
the helmet cracked and not my head. Then came the onslaught from Frank
who was not there either using the same hyperbole and innuendo.

I wonder if there was a poll here how many would have the same experience.
Of course I've seen him run off new posters so that may not work.

[sms]

On 6/19/2013 3:40 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

> Hi Jay.
>
> My conclusion is that frank us steadfastly anti-helmet no matter what evidence anyone has that a helmet was beneficial to them. Back in 2010 I nade a post in this group about an accident that I had and that my head struck the paement very hard. I also stated that at the time of that accident I was very glad that I was wearing a helmet. Frank who was nowhere near the scene of that accident stated that I was "obviously" overstating things. Frank also stated that had I not been wearing the helmet that most likely my head would not have hit the pavement. Frank also stated that i would not be able to accurately determine if the force that my head struck the pavement with would have been sufficient to damage my head had I not been wearing a helmet. All that despite the fact that I'd said that it was my temple that would have struck the pavement HARD. Frank also went into the spiel of mandatory helmet laws which was something I'd never advocated is any of my posts at any time.

"When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

[sms]

On 6/19/2013 4:14 AM, Duane H�bert wrote:

> And, at least for Canada, it seems that increased helmet use does not
> coincide with lower cycling counts whether the helmet use is mandatory
> or not. Sort of coincides with what I can see for myself.

The "helmet laws reduce cycling levels" is one of the favorite false
premises of the AHZs, then they talk about all sorts of terrible things
that result from the non-existent reduction in cycling levels.

In fact, cycling levels vary for a number of reasons, and perhaps
helmets laws are contributing to the increase and perhaps without helmet
laws the increases would be even larger.

It reminds me of the Tea Partiers in the U.S. that were told by their
handlers that voting by illegal aliens is a huge problem and that laws
need to be passed to prevent it. In fact it is a virtually non-existent
problem, and the laws that were passed were intended to prevent legal
citizens, that were more likely to vote Democratic, from voting. The
U.S. Supreme Court just invalidated one of those laws a couple of days ago.

[sms]

On 6/19/2013 5:12 AM, Duane wrote:

<snip>

> I disagree. They usually haven't falling into the depths of despair.
> They usually believe this crap completely as a basis for the one true
> religion. Theirs. Desperate people deserve pity. Religious zealots do
> not.

I disagree. They don't relieve believe the crap. They're told by their
handlers what to say and they say it because it justifies their own
actions. They're much like the Tea Party people in the U.S..

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 18, 11:15 am, Radey Shouman <shou...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> writes:

> > On Jun 17, 9:30 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 17, 6:24 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>

> >> > On Monday, June 17, 2013 12:38:49 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> > > On Jun 17, 11:13 am, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > On 6/17/2013 10:13 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> >> > > > > Ooooh, you're going to hate this helmet-saved-life story from
>
> >> > > > > yesterday's news:
>
> >> > > > >http://www.kptv.com/story/22603582/hit-and-run-driver-injures-bicycli...
>
> >> > > > And on top of that the guy was hit from behind.  Another "favorite" of
>
> >> > > > the take the lane crowd.
>
> >> > > Why are you assuming he was taking the lane?  The photos show what
>
> >> > > seems to be a narrow bike lane.  I can't tell (from debris, etc.)
>
> >> > > where the impact occurred, but I'd bet he was to the right of the
>
> >> > > magic, all-protective white line.
>
> >> > > Do any other reports mention whether or not he had a taillight?
>
> >> > > Lights were not mentioned, but even a very ordinary taillight is far
>
> >> > > more effective than the reflective jacket that was mentioned.
>
> >> > > And of course, there is a possibility that the helmet did save his
>
> >> > > life.  There seem to be perhaps 35000 "my helmet saved my life"
>
> >> > > stories annually in the U.S.  Some of them may actually be true.
>
> >> > > Of course, there are only about 750 annual bike deaths in the U.S.
>
> >> > > What does it mean when the number of lives "saved" greatly exceeds the
>
> >> > > record number of deaths?  That if the person did not wear a helmet,
>
> >> > > ten people around him would have died with him?  Just wondering.
>
> >> > > - Frank Krygowski
>
> >> > Frank.
>
> >> > I know that you are vehemently anti-helmet but...
>
> >> > Take a melon and strap a helmet to it and then drop that helmeted melon from eight feet or so in such a way that it hits the ground helmet side down. You'll notice there is very little damage to that melon. Now take the same melon or another one of comparable size and drop it from the same height but without the helmet covering it. Notice that the unprotected helmet suffers a LOT MORE damage.

>
> >> > A helmet won't protect from every impact but they can help a lot.
>
> >> I understand your faith.
>

> >> But do you have an explanation for the fact (noted in the recent
> >> Bicycling magazine article) that bicyclist concussions have increased
> >> tremendously since helmets became popular?
>

> >> Do you have an explanation for the fact that pedestrian fatalities
> >> have dropped far faster than bicyclist fatalities since bike helmets
> >> became popular?
>

> > Decreased pedestrians and increased bicyclists? Better pedestrian
> > facilities? Bicyclists dying due to injuries other than head
> > injuries?  Who knows.  Tracking the two groups together is idiotic
> > since they are exposed to far different risks, except possibly while
> > crossing traffic -- and assuming that most pedestrians are not walking
> > at 20+ mph mixed in traffic.
>

> Tracking the two groups makes pretty good sense to me, but I've been
> called an idiot before.
>
> It's easy to get the impression that no one in r.b.t actually walks
> anywhere for transportation.  I do, and have easily had more close calls
> when walking than when bicycling -- granted that I have never competed
> in a cycling (or walking) competition, nor am likely to.
>
> The most significant risk is the same for both cyclists and pedestrians:
> drivers who don't see them, and run them over.  Pedestrians do mix in
> traffic, at closely spaced intersections in urban areas, and by the
> sides of roadways in rural and suburban areas.  When you're actually
> walking to get somewhere, crossing traffic happens all the time.
>
> 3 or 20+ mph?  What difference does it make if you're run over by
> someone doing 75?

As someone said above, the two primary accident modes for bicycles are
(1) getting hit by something, and (2) falling. I have not been hit by
a car for a long time, but I have fallen -- and fall much more
(although usually harmlessly) when trail riding. I've hit pot holes
at night in poorly lit areas while using a good headlight and gone
OTB; I've gone down in ice and on unexpectedly slick pavement on
twisting descents and spring races. Speed had an effect on the
severity of the injury and my ability to avoid falling. Had I been
walking, I might have stumbled momentarily or perhaps twisted my
ankle.

I have also been hit between five and ten times -- most seriously
descending from Mt. Hamilton down in to San Jose and a car left hooked
me. I hit the front right quarter panel, went flying and got knocked
out. Had I been walking, nothing would have happened. I've been
right hooked while riding at 20-25mph probably three times in the last
40 years -- all involved me hitting the front quarter panel, getting
popped in to the air or rolled across the hood. None of these
incidents would have occurred while walking. Pedestrians do get hit,
but their own speed is usually irrelevant in terms of enhancing the
injury.

Now, I agree with Frank that head injury is rare even in these types
of incidents -- and based on my own personal experience, it is more
likely to happen going OTB or in a simple fall, but those are the
accidents that I am most likely to see riding where I do. I then
consider the downside of helmet wearing for me . . . there is none.
My helmet is lightweight and relatively cool, plus it rarely gets
above 90F here, when a helmet may become oppressive. The only real
downside is a sweatband that may leak saltwater in to my eyes.

The calculus may be different population wide, and mandating helmets
is Draconian in light of the risk of head injury to the average
rider. That's why no one seriously advocates MHLs on this NG, but
Frank doesn't seem to understand that. He gets everyone so pissed off,
pretty soon we're all advocating for iron buckets with chain chin
straps for all. The anit-MHL agenda takes ten steps backwards.

-- Jay Beattie.

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:30:02 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
> fkwrites:

Dan, the article is copyrighted. Accident Analysis & Prevention's subscription costs hundreds of dollars per year, and they don't put their articles online for free, AFAIK.

I happened to get my copy from Paul Scuffham, in postal mail, after brief correspondence with him. But I've gotten many other articles through the university library system. You can probably go to a public library and have the librarian help you get a copy, perhaps for a small fee.

I've discussed this article countless times. The math may be daunting, but the graphs are crystal clear. After many years of zero helmet use, followed by a gradual increase, helmet use suddenly soared, almost as a step function. Kids' helmet use jumped from about 30% to about 90% within two years. But the graphs showing percentage hospitalizations due to head injury (their term, BTW) had no change in their previous trend line (which was a constant small downward slope, going far back into the "zero helmet" days). The authors tried several very sophisticated statistical techniques to fins some evidence of benefit, but failed. And in the authors' conclusion, they admitted that helmets were not producing the expected benefits.

Visit your library.

- Frank Krygowski

[Duane]

On 6/19/2013 9:30 AM, sms wrote:
> On 6/19/2013 4:14 AM, Duane H�bert wrote:
>
>> And, at least for Canada, it seems that increased helmet use does not
>> coincide with lower cycling counts whether the helmet use is mandatory
>> or not. Sort of coincides with what I can see for myself.
>
> The "helmet laws reduce cycling levels" is one of the favorite false
> premises of the AHZs, then they talk about all sorts of terrible things
> that result from the non-existent reduction in cycling levels.
>
> In fact, cycling levels vary for a number of reasons, and perhaps
> helmets laws are contributing to the increase and perhaps without helmet
> laws the increases would be even larger.
>

I was referring to the quoted link that said that there were increased
cycling rates whether there was a MHL or not. But yeah, I don't think
that there has been any causal relationship proven that shows cycling
rates declining with MHL. Not that I'm for them. I'm not sure about
that.

But I can tell you that my son has been under a MHL instituted by his
mom and me since he started riding a bike and it doesn't bother him at
all. Nor his friends.

[Duane]

It's the handlers that I'm talking about. I'm not talking about their
local reps. The local reps are so lacking in credibility that they're
best just ignored.

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:39:58 PM UTC-4, Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 06-18-2013 23:07, fk wrote:
>
>
> > I'm curious - did you_really_ do that test [dropping melons in helmets]? Since helmets are supposed to be tossed out after any impact, testing very many helmets that way would be a bit expensive.

>
>
>
> What if he used the same helmet in every test? If it provided some
>
> protection on the second test, that is in spite of the alleged need
>
> to discard it.

I was referring to the fact that helmet proponents say you should not wear a helmet after any impact. Personally, I don't doubt that it would still offer some protection to the next melon; but even though I'm not a helmet fan, I'd prefer not to "destroy" one in a crude and rather silly test!

> I have performed my own experiments: I have crashed eight times.
>
> Two of those crashes required wheel replacement; one required
>
> bike replacement. One sent me to E.R. Two resulted in lots of blood.
>
> But in none of them was there an impact to skull or helmet.

I think that's what most cyclists experience.

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:27:13 AM UTC-4, James wrote:

> On 19/06/13 13:02, fk wrote:
>
>
> > James, do you understand that I used to be pro helmet? What changed
>
> > my mind was detailed examination of data on relative risk, and
>
> > discussions (starting here, actually) that led me to critically
>
> > examine the pro- and con- papers on helmet effects.
>
> >
>
> > That process shouldn't be labeled "faith." Most people call that
>
> > sort of thing "science."
>
>
>
> I thought most people called that statistics.

"Statistics is the science of learning from data." See
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6077/12.summary for example.

- Frank Krygowski

[frkr...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:54:04 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:49:07 PM UTC-7, fk wrote:
>
>
> > The bare fact is that cycling, at least in any ordinary way, is a low risk activity, with risk lower even than walking. How can it then be logical to strongly recommend or even mandate head protection for a lower risk activity, but to ignore it for an activity that's much more common and much more risky? That strategy can't be justified based on either relative risk to the individual or cost to society.
>
>
>
> Who is talking about mandatory helmet laws, mandating helmets, etc., etc? Not me.

Re-read my paragraph. I said "recommend OR even mandate...". You may not mandate (although I'd be surprised if you didn't regarding your son), but you certainly recommend.

> > True. Most cyclists are never hitting their head in any way.
>
> Most cyclists who don't race, ride trails, ride in inclement weather including ice and snow.

I don't know if your commas are intended to represent the conjunction "and" or the conjunction "or." But in America, most cyclists carefully avoid ice, snow and even rain. Most cyclists rarely if ever ride trails, as well.

> I've crashed and had my face sewn up and ruined helmets. I know from my injury distribution that if I hadn't been wearing a helmet, I would have at least lacerated my scalp. I don't know if the concussion would have been worsened without a helmet.

I think those guesses are reasonable. But understand, helmets are not energetically promoted nor mandated based on scalp lacerations. Read the propaganda. They are pushed to prevent TBI. And we're continually finding evidence that they fail to do so, at least in numbers that would be required of other medical prevention strategies (like pharmaceuticals, for example).

If helmets had to meet FDA standards for effectiveness, they'd be off the market by now.

> > It's still a simple minded insult, Jay. I (and many others) have provided indicators of relative risk, data showing that cycling is not unusually dangerous regarding brain injury. You and some others persist in saying, in effect, "It doesn't matter if bicycling is very safe, you must still wear protection!" or perhaps "I don't believe the professionally collected data, and I don't have any data that counters it; I just believe what I already believe!" How are those attitudes logical?
>
>
>
> You persist in arguing averages and statistics in response to arguments regarding the protective effect of helmets and personal risk patterns. I don't care about averages. I'm not making public health decisions or advocating MHLs. The fact is that in a car, I have seat belts, airbags, safety glass, collapsing steering columns, reinforced pillars, etc., etc. On a bike, I've got gloves and a helmet. While walking, I'm not mixed in with fast moving traffic or moving fast myself. Your arguments are offensive and assume that I am utterly unfamiliar with my own risk patterns, as is everyone else on this NG.

I think the reason people take offense at my quoting of data is because the data is so much at odds with their "I know my risks!" feelings. And I suppose I might stop rebutting your feelings - if you weren't using them to say "Bicycling is dangerous!"

Like it or not, Jay, the data is _not_ on your side. And think: Would you use an expert witness who said "I plan to say that data doesn't matter, and that the jury should just pay attention to my feelings"?

> > Yes, that's been discussed in other forums. Apparently nobody discussing it has seen the full paper yet (and that journal isn't available in my academic library system) so there's much speculation going on. But comments that have been made are that the impact surface does not appear to have anything close to the characteristics of asphalt. Also, there does not seem to be any comparison with the real-world alternative target, which would be a smaller diameter bare head, armed with evolutionary reflexes to protect it from any impact; and with that head being naturally protected from angular acceleration by a low-friction head of hair plus a loosely attached scalp, "designed" to tear and expose even lower friction (albeit very messy) tissue beneath.
>
>
>
> Smaller target? You pile drive in to the ground when you go OTB, and your head snaps to the right or left. It's not like you're going to miss the ground.

Nope, that's more "Bicycling is dangerous!" Most falls are not over the bars, and most over the bars do not meet the "pile driver" definition. I've gone over the bars multiple times back when I did enthusiastic mountain biking. I never hit my head, and in fact, I often landed on hands and feet.

> Hair is not low friction -- it gets stuck in asphalt and tears, along with the scalp. And yes, your scalp rips open or separates from the skull and has to be stapled back. All of this can be avoided by wearing a helmet.

Right. But the sacrifice of the hair and scalp is what evolution (or your favorite deity) has arranged as protection for the brain. It works. Messy as it is, that's what helmet "protection" should be compared against.

And (yet again) helmets are not sold on the basis of preventing scalp laceration. They're sold for preventing TBI. And if the FDA made them meet the same standards as aspirin, they'd be taken off the market.

> I don't care if you wear a helmet. I'm going to, except when I'm rolling to the store or puttering around a resort.
>

And I don't care if you wear a helmet. I'm off now to ride with friends. My guess is two will have helmets, two of us will not. At least one wearing a helmet is a PhD who has admitted that the data is on my side, but he still prefers to wear one. And I don't debate him - unless he starts the debate again!

- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

The grotesque irrationality of Phil W Lee's reply is saved in full below.

Phil, baby, you are too crude and unsophisticated to grasp this, but saying that cycling can be made safer isn't the same as saying cycling is too dangerous to indulge in.

Phil, baby, I remind you that, after Krygowski for decades overstated the danger of cycling on American roads, I was the one who made the hard-numbers analysis that proved that cycling is safe enough, safer certainly than Krygowski claimed. Everyone now works with my numbers, including you.

I'm on your side, sonny, whether you realize it or not. Your dumb abuse is counterproductive to your cause. (Well, as long as your cause isn't only blindly walking in the idiot Krygowski's every footstep because he's a "perfesser".)

For that matter, almost everyone here is on your side, even on the foolish Krygowski's side, even after years of the pair of you doing your best to alienate everyone who is brighter and more articulate and more persuasive than the pair of you clowns together.

Nobody here wants mandatory helmet laws. The only people who want to enforce any action are stoopid anti-helmet zealots of fascist tendencies like Krygowski, Sherman and Lee, who try to enforce ostracism on anyone who voluntarily wears a helmet or says a favourable word about helmets. Your behavior is an insult the libertarian principles which cause us to be against MHL in the first instance. You're an embarrassment to cyclists everywhere.

You're not dealing with a kindergarten class here, sonny. People look at you and Krygowski's machinations, decide all cyclists are stupid, and decide not to cycle. The pair of you are walking, talking examples of the Law of Unintended Effect.

Andre Jute
Deja vu

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 4:50:03 PM UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> considered Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:49:08

>
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:46:44 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >> On Jun 18, 3:22 pm, cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > As someone who has suffered badly from a head injury I can tell you it's no fun.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I don't doubt that. And yet, the vast majority of serious brain
>
> >>
>
> >> injuries (let's distinguish those from "head injuries," OK?) have
>
> >>
>
> >> absolutely nothing to do with bicycling.
>
> >
>
> >1. Any head injury could be "no fun", not only brain injuries. And it is especially head injuries that helmets are help to prevent. That's precisely why we want to discuss head injuries, see, Franki-boy? The reason you're so keen not to discuss head injuries is that we already know head injuries to cyclists are reduced by wearing
>
> helmets.
>
>
>

> Actually, we know they aren't.

>
> >
>
> >2. It is irrelevant that "the vast majority of serious brain injuries have absolutely nothing to do with bicycling." We're not interested in brain injuries that happen outside bicycling, which you, Franki-boy, constantly use as an excuse not to discuss brain injuries that happen to bicyclists. The reason you're so keen not to
>
> discuss brain injuries is that we already know brain injuries to cyclists are reduced by wearing helmets.
>
>
>

> Actaully, we know they aren't

>
> >
>
> >Stop blowing smoke, Franki-boy, and discuss the matters of interest to us as cyclists, head and brain injuries to "cyclists", and how helmets can help to prevent them, or piss off.
>
> >
>

> Falsely portraying cycling as some form of extreme sport might impress
>
> the local ladies where you are (and I've no doubt you have little else
>
> to impress them with), but I don't believe cycling benefits by that.
>
>
>
> Far better to simply tell the truth - that cycling is actually so safe
>
> that it's more dangerous NOT to cycle.

>
>
>
> >Andre Jute
>
> >Tired of Kreepy Krygowski's ducking and weaving and weaseling
>
>
>

> Phil Lee
>
> Tired of Andy Pandy's lying.

[Andre Jute]

My helmet has only to save me from road rash on my face to earn its keep.

I wish the AHZ would put the energy they waste on trying to force other cyclists not to wear helmets or say anything favorable about helmets into harassing the manufactures of helmets to improve them.

Sorry, Superbike racing on telly, and smoked salmon is up. Ciao.

Andre Jute

[SMS]

On 6/19/2013 7:31 AM, Duane wrote:

> But I can tell you that my son has been under a MHL instituted by his
> mom and me since he started riding a bike and it doesn't bother him at
> all. Nor his friends.

The MHLs for children under 18 probably contribute to increased cycling
rates because too many parents believe that a helmet is all that is
necessary to ensure safety while cycling. This leads to lack of
education in safe cycling practices.

When a new middle school opened near me the school was caught off-guard
by the huge number of students biking to school and had to rush to build
a second bicycle parking area. They incorrectly assumed that the
over-protective parents in our area would not dream of letting their
kids ride their bikes to school. But the attitude of parents seems to be
"if my kid wears a helmet then they're safe." The cycling behavior of
the middle school students is atrocious, but when I asked the sheriff
why they no longer hold cycling clinics for kids I was informed that it
was because the city council cut out one officer position so they no
longer had the resources.

What we need to be telling kids (and adults) is: "yes, if you crash and
hit your head a helmet will lessen the severity of your injuries, but
there's a lot more to safe cycling than just wearing a helmet." What the
AHZs don't understand is that by starting out with a false premise
they're losing all credibility and then no one will listen to any good
advice that they might have.

[sms]

On 6/19/2013 12:27 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

> I wish the AHZ would put the energy they waste on trying to force other cyclists not to wear helmets or say anything favorable about helmets into harassing the manufactures of helmets to improve them.

Yes, it would be wonderful if they could be educated to re-direct their
energy toward more productive endeavors.

[Duane]

On 6/19/2013 4:28 PM, SMS wrote:
> On 6/19/2013 7:31 AM, Duane wrote:
>
>> But I can tell you that my son has been under a MHL instituted by his
>> mom and me since he started riding a bike and it doesn't bother him at
>> all. Nor his friends.
>
> The MHLs for children under 18 probably contribute to increased cycling
> rates because too many parents believe that a helmet is all that is
> necessary to ensure safety while cycling. This leads to lack of
> education in safe cycling practices.
>

I guess it can if you don't do anything but give them a bike and a
helmet. I don't know many people that do this but I guess they're out
there.

> When a new middle school opened near me the school was caught off-guard
> by the huge number of students biking to school and had to rush to build
> a second bicycle parking area. They incorrectly assumed that the
> over-protective parents in our area would not dream of letting their
> kids ride their bikes to school. But the attitude of parents seems to be
> "if my kid wears a helmet then they're safe." The cycling behavior of
> the middle school students is atrocious, but when I asked the sheriff
> why they no longer hold cycling clinics for kids I was informed that it
> was because the city council cut out one officer position so they no
> longer had the resources.
>
> What we need to be telling kids (and adults) is: "yes, if you crash and
> hit your head a helmet will lessen the severity of your injuries, but
> there's a lot more to safe cycling than just wearing a helmet." What the
> AHZs don't understand is that by starting out with a false premise
> they're losing all credibility and then no one will listen to any good
> advice that they might have.
>
>

My kid plays hockey, skis and snowboards. He knows the value of a
helmet and the value of knowing what you're doing. Part of parenting is
teaching your kids how to protect themselves.

[Andre Jute]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 4:09:28 PM UTC+1, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:54:04 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:

> I think the reason people take offense at my quoting of data is because the data is so much at odds with their "I know my risks!" feelings. And I suppose I might stop rebutting your feelings - if you weren't using them to say "Bicycling is dangerous!"

Where did Jay say, "Bicycling is dangerous!"? This is bullshit, Franki-boy. You're making up words again and putting them in people's mouths.

I and everyone else clearly hear Jay say over and over and over again that he considers cycling safe enough to indulge in extensively, to encourage his child to cycle, and that he takes precautions, like wearing a helmet, to mitigate the risk in bicycling inherent in his milieu and style of riding.

To me that sounds like straightforward common sense.

HTF do you, Krygowski, get from there to portraying Jay as a supporter of MHL?

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:15:16 PM UTC+1, Radey Shouman wrote:
>
> 3 or 20+ mph? What difference does it make if you're run over by
> someone doing 75?

Yah. Like Radey, I'm a walker as well as a cyclist, and it really doesn't matter to the victim whether some statistician counts a few points this way or a few points that way in differential likelihood of being killed cycling or walking.. What kills is the speed differential and inattentive/incompetent drivers.

Andre Jute

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 19, 12:36 am, sms <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/2013 8:30 PM, Dan wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > frkry...@gmail.com writes:
>
> >> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:22:01 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

> >>> On 6/18/2013 6:55 PM, Dan wrote:
>
> >>> <snip>
>
> >>>>> LOL. No it's not.
>
> >>>>http://www.occup-med.com/content/7/1/9
>
> >>> The conclusion certainly seems to state there there is a benefit to
>
> >>> helmet usage.

>
> >>> In fact there is not a single peer reviewed study in existence that does
>
> >>> not conclude that helmets are effective in reducing the severity of head
>
> >>> injuries in head impact crashes, and not even the most virulent AHZ
>
> >>> disagrees with this.
>
> >> You are flat wrong.  You need to read more on this topic.
>
> >> Try, for just one example, Scuffham, P.A. et. al., "Trends in Cycling Injuries in New Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet Use" 1997, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 29, No. 1
>
> >> They found no detectable benefit.  I've posted details about this before, but you (of course) refuse to read the paper.
>
> > Link to full text, please?
>

> You have to pay.
>
> But in any case, that paper does not examine the severity of head
> injuries in helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclists in the event of head
> impact crashes. It is a statistical analysis of hospital admissions
> before and after the helmet law took effect. Another example of the
> inability to distinguish between causation and correlation, and the
> failure to examine other factors besides helmet usage.

To explain the genesis of the Scuffham study: Paul Scuffham and his
team of researchers worked, at that time, for the road safety agency
in New Zealand. The legislature had passed an all-ages MHL largely on
the basis of Thompson & Rivara's "85%" claim, and the road safety
people had engaged in very heavy helmet promotion prior to the
deadline of enforcement of the law. Under the very heavy promotion,
helmet use in NZ had suddenly soared.

Scuffham and his team (and probably his superiors) realized they had
access to a "natural experiment," whose data they thought would
conclusively prove the value of helmets. Understand that by this
time, Australia had enacted all-ages MHLs and had claimed that they
worked because head or brain injuries had dropped; but had gotten
somewhat burned when others were able to show that the drop in cycling
was actually greater than the drop in head or brain injuries.

So Scuffham's team decided on a tactic that would mathematically
detect all the people protected from hospitalization by the helmets.
They looked at all available hospital records for cyclists in the
country, back to 1980. They reasoned that since some cyclists would
be protected from hospital admission by helmets, the percentage
admitted due to head injury (including brain injury) would show a
sudden drop at the same time helmet use showed a sudden rise. And
they used percentages, not raw counts, so nobody could say that the
expected beneficial findings were due to fewer cycists (although the
drop in cyclists in New Zealand has subsequently been proven, as in
Australia).

So Scuffham was a pro-helmet researcher looking for pro-helmet
evidence for the pro-helmet agency he worked for.

Amazingly, and to his credit, he was honest enough to report that his
well-thought-out methodology showed the opposite: There was
absolutely zero detectable benefit from the great surge in helmet use.

I suspect he caught hell from his boss. He later published a paper
saying "Wait, here's how we can show benefit." Instead of examining
all the time trend data, he backed off and picked a point in time
before helmets and compared to a point in time after helmets, saying
there was a drop in percentage hospitalized due to head injuries.
That rapidly drew a rebuttal paper and much criticism, since his first
paper on the topic had already documented a long-term environmental
drop in that percentage, one that greatly predated _any_ significant
use of helmets. I suspect he was forced to write that second paper,
since its deception was so transparently obvious.

When you work for a pro-helmet agency, I'm sure it's difficult to
accept pay (and keep your job) for writing a helmet skeptic paper,
even if it's done using good scientific techniques.

But Scharf's claim that the study is invalid is specious, as usual.
It was designed with a clear purpose, to "prove" the value of helmets
in a better way than the Australian attempts. Had it found what
helmet lovers expected, they'd be trumpeting it as the best study of
all time.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 19, 6:40 am, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:54:04 AM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:

> > On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:49:07 PM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:27:03 PM UTC-4, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 18, 1:02 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > Prevention of skull fracture, scalp injury and focal brain injury --
>
> > > > risks not generally associated with boxing.
>
> > > But all those injuries, and more, _are_ associated with pedestrians and with motor vehicle occupants.  In fact, they are much more common, and on average more serious, than among bicyclists.
>

> > > The bare fact is that cycling, at least in any ordinary way, is a low risk activity, with risk lower even than walking.  How can it then be logical to strongly recommend or even mandate head protection for a lower risk activity, but to ignore it for an activity that's much more common and much more risky?  That strategy can't be justified based on either relative risk to the individual or cost to society.
>
> > Who is talking about mandatory helmet laws, mandating helmets, etc., etc?  Not me.
>

> > > True.  Most cyclists are never hitting their head in any way.
>

> > > It's still a simple minded insult, Jay.  I (and many others) have provided indicators of relative risk, data showing that cycling is not unusually dangerous regarding brain injury.  You and some others persist in saying, in effect, "It doesn't matter if bicycling is very safe, you must still wear protection!" or perhaps "I don't believe the professionally collected data, and I don't have any data that counters it; I just believe what I already believe!"  How are those attitudes logical?
>
> > You persist in arguing averages and statistics in response to arguments regarding the protective effect of helmets and personal risk patterns.  I don't care about averages.  I'm not making public health decisions or advocating MHLs.  The fact is that in a car, I have seat belts, airbags, safety glass, collapsing steering columns, reinforced pillars, etc., etc.  On a bike, I've got gloves and a helmet.  While walking, I'm not mixed in with fast moving traffic or moving fast myself. Your arguments are offensive and assume that I am utterly unfamiliar with my own risk patterns, as is everyone else on this NG.
>

> > <snip>
>
> > > > From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets help prevent injury.
>
> > > >http://tinyurl.com/lwbjt2e
>

> > > Yes, that's been discussed in other forums.  Apparently nobody discussing it has seen the full paper yet (and that journal isn't available in my academic library system) so there's much speculation going on.  But comments that have been made are that the impact surface does not appear to have anything close to the characteristics of asphalt.  Also, there does not seem to be any comparison with the real-world alternative target, which would be a smaller diameter bare head, armed with evolutionary reflexes to protect it from any impact; and with that head being naturally protected from angular acceleration by a low-friction head of hair plus a loosely attached scalp, "designed" to tear and expose even lower friction (albeit very messy) tissue beneath.
>
> > Smaller target?  You pile drive in to the ground when you go OTB, and your head snaps to the right or left.  It's not like you're going to miss the ground.
>

> > Hair is not low friction -- it gets stuck in asphalt and tears, along with the scalp. And yes, your scalp rips open or separates from the skull and has to be stapled back.  All of this can be avoided by wearing a helmet.
>

> > > > If all I did was roll around on some 'fiet on the bike roads in
>
> > > > Amsterdam, I wouldn't bother with a helmet. Regrettably, I am exposed
>
> > > > to additional dangers and have made the decision to wear a helmet,
>
> > > > particularly since it has prevented injuries in the past.
>
> > > Of course, I've ridden many of the places you ride, although obviously not nearly as often.  But somehow, somehow, I've survived.  Go figure!
>

> > You have ridden them in the snow or ice? In the dark?  In a rainstorm and standing water a foot deep? How about three feet?http://tinyurl.com/lrc6syyI routinely ride 45-50mph down the street next to my house. My house is a mile from a trail system that is nothing but root pots, bushes and rocks.  This road is like a sled run during the winter, and its a common part of my commute.http://tinyurl.com/m5gc2rc

>
> > Weekends involve fast riding with others. My riding patterns are considerably different from yours.
>

> > I don't care if you wear a helmet.  I'm going to, except when I'm rolling to the store or puttering around a resort.
>

> > -- Jay Beattie.

>
> Hi Jay.
>
> My conclusion is that frank us steadfastly anti-helmet no matter what evidence anyone has that a helmet was beneficial to them. Back in 2010 I nade a post in this group about an accident that I had and that my head struck the paement very hard. I also stated that at the time of that accident I was very glad that I was wearing a helmet. Frank who was nowhere near the scene of that accident stated that I was "obviously" overstating things. Frank also stated that had I not been wearing the helmet that most likely my head would not have hit the pavement. Frank also stated that i would not be able to accurately determine if the force that my head struck the pavement with would have been sufficient to damage my head had I not been wearing a helmet. All that despite the fact that I'd said that it was my temple that would have struck the pavement HARD. Frank also went into the spiel of mandatory helmet laws which was something I'd never advocated is any of my posts at any time.
>

> Cheers

If you're going to resurrect an ancient exchange, it may be better to
post the direct quote of what I actually said, rather than your
recollection of it. I've found quite a lot of misquoting on this
issue.

- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 3:15:30 PM UTC+1, Jay Beattie wrote:

> The calculus may be different population wide, and mandating helmets
>
> is Draconian in light of the risk of head injury to the average
>
> rider. That's why no one seriously advocates MHLs on this NG, but
>
> Frank doesn't seem to understand that. He gets everyone so pissed off,
>
> pretty soon we're all advocating for iron buckets with chain chin
>
> straps for all. The anit-MHL agenda takes ten steps backwards.

I'm sure you understand that my analyses of bicycle safety are provocatively headlined merely to put a burr under Franki-boy's saddle, and that of his faithful Sancho Panza Phil Lee, and that I report the statistics and their implications faithfully. But, merely for the sake of a complete picture, among the countries where good statistics are available, the USA makes the best statistical case for an MHL. Whether you move from my numbers (off the cuff, from memory, between 70 and 400 fewer casualties) to coercion of the populace of cyclists, depends on how many lives trigger action in your political model. But one cannot fail to note national outrage in the States at a handful of American boys killed in a war on distant soil, certainly at far fewer than the smallest number of cyclists that an MHL seems likely save.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 19, 10:15 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> Now, I agree with Frank that head injury is rare even in these types
> of incidents -- and based on my own personal experience, it is more
> likely to happen going OTB or in a simple fall, but those are the
> accidents that I am most likely to see riding where I do. I then
> consider the downside of helmet wearing for me . . . there is none.
> My helmet is lightweight and relatively cool, plus it rarely gets
> above 90F here, when a helmet may become oppressive. The only real
> downside is a sweatband that may leak saltwater in to my eyes.
>
> The calculus may be different population wide, and mandating helmets
> is Draconian in light of the risk of head injury to the average
> rider.  That's why no one seriously advocates MHLs on this NG, but
> Frank doesn't seem to understand that. He gets everyone so pissed off,
> pretty soon we're all advocating for iron buckets with chain chin
> straps for all.  The anit-MHL agenda takes ten steps backwards.

Thanks for the admission that head injury is rare while cycling, even
in your unusually enthusiastic manner. (And you can take that, too, as
a compliment, Jay.)

But please admit, while nobody on r.b.tech currently admits to liking
all-ages MHLs, there certainly were such folks in the past. More
recently, there were people who expressed approval for kids MHLs.
What we now have is an r.b.tech culture where people don't admit to
liking MHLs. But as with your own city's purported bike advocacy
organization, I think there are those here who would never oppose such
a law.

And of course, while the fashion for MHLs has greatly diminished since
their 1990s heyday, there are still attempts to pass them. That's
specifically what led to the pro-helmet WABA to mount a successful
legal challenge to the "85%" claim.

What we do have here on r.b.tech is a handful of dedicated posters on
this topic who say, in effect, that the riding habits of 99% of the
world's cyclists are wrong; IOW, that cycling is risky enough
regarding head and/or brain injuries, and that helmets are effective
enough, that one should not question their promotion. And that a
person skeptical of them (even bearing reams of data) should be
labeled a Zealot, a Nazi, or some other insulting term.

I suppose it's difficult for many people to admit that one of their
cherished beliefs is, if not flat-out wrong, then at least made
extremely questionable by so much data. For whatever reason, it
wasn't hard for me, even though I once promoted helmets. When it
became clear that the best data made promotion indefensible, I stopped
promoting them.

I went with the data. I guess to some, that's just traitorist. To me,
that's science.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Jun 19, 2:03 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 6:40 am, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>

<snip>

> > > On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:49:07 PM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> > > > Of course, I've ridden many of the places you ride, although obviously not nearly as often.  But somehow, somehow, I've survived.  Go figure!
>

>

> > My conclusion is that frank us steadfastly anti-helmet no matter what evidence anyone has that a helmet was beneficial to them. Back in 2010 I nade a post in this group about an accident that I had and that my head struck the paement very hard. I also stated that at the time of that accident I was very glad that I was wearing a helmet. Frank who was nowhere near the scene of that accident stated that I was "obviously" overstating things. Frank also stated that had I not been wearing the helmet that most likely my head would not have hit the pavement. Frank also stated that i would not be able to accurately determine if the force that my head struck the pavement with would have been sufficient to damage my head had I not been wearing a helmet. All that despite the fact that I'd said that it was my temple that would have struck the pavement HARD. Frank also went into the spiel of mandatory helmet laws which was something I'd never advocated is any of my posts at any time.
>
> > Cheers
>
> If you're going to resurrect an ancient exchange, it may be better to
> post the direct quote of what I actually said, rather than your
> recollection of it.  I've found quite a lot of misquoting on this
> issue.
>

My introduction to Frank:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/dc7b3c658a56d85b?hl=en

Complete with discounting the value of my helmet (which I never even
stated - merely let the asphalt induced gouges speak for themselves
and suggest what they may), blaming me for not riding properly, and
blaming the bike facility.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jun 19, 4:28 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> What we need to be telling kids (and adults) is: "yes, if you crash and
> hit your head a helmet will lessen the severity of your injuries, but
> there's a lot more to safe cycling than just wearing a helmet." What the
> AHZs don't understand is that by starting out with a false premise
> they're losing all credibility and then no one will listen to any good
> advice that they might have.

I don't know if anyone else here has ever written bike safety
articles, written scripts for bike safety PSAs, given presentations in
schools, been interviewed for newspapers, TV and radio on this topic.
I have done all those.

It used to be that my first task was to convince the audience that
there was much more to bike safety than "Always wear a helmet." Why?
Because for many, many years that was the first and often ONLY piece
of bike safety advice that people got. I recall helmeted families
riding facing traffic, helmeted cyclists blasting through red lights,
a helmeted crew of guys in a prosperous neighborhood riding facing
traffic at night (several without lights), etc.

Much of that was before I encountered the evidence against helmet
promotion. But even then, I put helmets at about the bottom of the
list. These days, they're not on the list at all. And interestingly,
the people who asked me to write said lists in the past several years
never mentioned the lack of helmet advice. Perhaps this silly fashion
is beginning to wane?

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Jun 19, 7:28 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:30:02 PM UTC-4, Dan wrote:
> > fkwrites:
>
> > > On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:22:01 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
>
> > >> In fact there is not a single peer reviewed study in existence that does
>
> > >> not conclude that helmets are effective in reducing the severity of head
>
> > >> injuries in head impact crashes, and not even the most virulent AHZ
>
> > >> disagrees with this.
>
> > > You are flat wrong.  You need to read more on this topic.
>
> > > Try, for just one example, Scuffham, P.A. et. al., "Trends in Cycling Injuries in New Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet Use" 1997, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 29, No. 1
>
> > > They found no detectable benefit.  I've posted details about this before, but you (of course) refuse to read the paper.
>
> > Link to full text, please?
>
> Dan, the article is copyrighted.  Accident Analysis & Prevention's subscription costs hundreds of dollars per year, and they don't put their articles online for free, AFAIK.
>

Ah, I see.

So what do you make of the study I linked to:

http://www.occup-med.com/content/7/1/9

<snip>

[Dan O]

On Jun 19, 2:27 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 10:15 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Now, I agree with Frank that head injury is rare even in these types
> > of incidents -- and based on my own personal experience, it is more
> > likely to happen going OTB or in a simple fall, but those are the
> > accidents that I am most likely to see riding where I do. I then
> > consider the downside of helmet wearing for me . . . there is none.
> > My helmet is lightweight and relatively cool, plus it rarely gets
> > above 90F here, when a helmet may become oppressive. The only real
> > downside is a sweatband that may leak saltwater in to my eyes.
>
> > The calculus may be different population wide, and mandating helmets
> > is Draconian in light of the risk of head injury to the average
> > rider.  That's why no one seriously advocates MHLs on this NG, but
> > Frank doesn't seem to understand that. He gets everyone so pissed off,
> > pretty soon we're all advocating for iron buckets with chain chin
> > straps for all.  The anit-MHL agenda takes ten steps backwards.
>

> Thanks for the admission that head injury is rare while cycling...

We all stipulate that - that and the many complicating factors is part
of what makes measuring helmet efficacy so difficult with your
precious "statistics".

>, even
> in your unusually enthusiastic manner. (And you can take that, too, as
> a compliment, Jay.)
>
> But please admit, while nobody on r.b.tech currently admits to liking
> all-ages MHLs, there certainly were such folks in the past.  More
> recently, there were people who expressed approval for kids MHLs.
> What we now have is an r.b.tech culture where people don't admit to
> liking MHLs.  But as with your own city's purported bike advocacy
> organization, I think there are those here who would never oppose such
> a law.
>
> And of course, while the fashion for MHLs has greatly diminished since
> their 1990s heyday, there are still attempts to pass them.  That's
> specifically what led to the pro-helmet WABA to mount a successful
> legal challenge to the "85%" claim.
>
> What we do have here on r.b.tech is a handful of dedicated posters on
> this topic who say, in effect, that the riding habits of 99% of the

> world's cyclists...

How do you break that down? How many bicyclists are there (total)?
No two ride the same way; and *none* do it 100% right.

> ... are wrong;

What??

> IOW, that cycling is risky enough
> regarding head and/or brain injuries, and that helmets are effective
> enough, that one should not question their promotion.  And that a
> person skeptical of them (even bearing reams of data) should be
> labeled a Zealot, a Nazi, or some other insulting term.
>

I'm a skeptic; you're a judgmental propagandist.

> I suppose it's difficult for many people to admit that one of their
> cherished beliefs is, if not flat-out wrong, then at least made
> extremely questionable by so much data.  For whatever reason, it
> wasn't hard for me, even though I once promoted helmets.  When it
> became clear that the best data made promotion indefensible, I stopped
> promoting them.
>

Who here is promoting them? Please address your argument to them.

> I went with the data. I guess to some, that's just traitorist.

What are you even talking about?

> To me,
> that's science.
>

Science is about understanding the world. It's a good basic approach,
but Spock wasn't Captain for a reason.