Head Injuries Are the Biggest Problem

[Spike]

Head Injuries Are the Biggest Problem

The majority of serious injuries from cycling have one thing in common,
says Fred Rivara, M.D., M.P.H., a professor of pediatrics at the University
of Washington. “Two thirds of hospitalizations and three quarters of deaths
from bicycle injuries are due to head injuries,” he says. “The most
effective way to prevent that from occurring is to wear a helmet.”

Indeed, extensive research has demonstrated that a helmet is the best way
riders can protect themselves against head injuries—especially those that
are potentially fatal.

--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

On Sunday, 25 September 2022 at 16:46:15 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
> Head Injuries Are the Biggest Problem

Indeed they are.
Trips and falls around the home are the biggest cause of head injuries.
Time for mandatory House Helmets.

Is that Fred Rivara of the most discredited peer reviewed paper in the history of science which proved cycle helmets prevent 75% on knee injuries?

[Spike]

Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 September 2022 at 16:46:15 UTC+1, Spike wrote:

>> Head Injuries Are the Biggest Problem
>
> Indeed they are.
> Trips and falls around the home are the biggest cause of head injuries.

And they kill almost as many as there are road deaths. What’s your solution
to that?

> Time for mandatory House Helmets.

We can point to who we have killed but to none we have saved.

> Is that Fred Rivara of the most discredited peer reviewed paper in the
> history of science which proved cycle helmets prevent 75% on knee injuries?

Are you a professor of paediatrics?

Thought not.

--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 14:45:27 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, 25 September 2022 at 16:46:15 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>
> >> Head Injuries Are the Biggest Problem
> >
> > Indeed they are.
> > Trips and falls around the home are the biggest cause of head injuries.
> And they kill almost as many as there are road deaths. What’s your solution
> to that?

There is no simple solution. The majority of road deaths from head injuries occur within motor vehicles so mandatory driving helmets would seem the obvious solution. Unfortunately this would make motorists feel safer and they would take more risks which would cause more pedestrian and cycle deaths.

> > Time for mandatory House Helmets.
> We can point to who we have killed but to none we have saved.

Just like cycle helmets.

> > Is that Fred Rivara of the most discredited peer reviewed paper in the
> > history of science which proved cycle helmets prevent 75% on knee injuries?
> Are you a professor of paediatrics?

Do I need to be to understand statistics and know Thompson, Rivara and Thompson 1990 was retracted?

[Spike]

Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 14:45:27 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 25 September 2022 at 16:46:15 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>>
>>>> Head Injuries Are the Biggest Problem
>>>
>>> Indeed they are.
>>> Trips and falls around the home are the biggest cause of head injuries.
>> And they kill almost as many as there are road deaths. What’s your solution
>> to that?

> There is no simple solution. The majority of road deaths from head
> injuries occur within motor vehicles

Cite the authoritative data…

> so mandatory driving helmets would seem the obvious solution.
> Unfortunately this would make motorists feel safer and they would take
> more risks which would cause more pedestrian and cycle deaths.

Would….would…would…

No speculation there, then. 🙄

>>> Time for mandatory House Helmets.

>> We can point to who we have killed but to none we have saved.

> Just like cycle helmets.

Whoosh…

>>> Is that Fred Rivara of the most discredited peer reviewed paper in the
>>> history of science which proved cycle helmets prevent 75% on knee injuries?

>> Are you a professor of paediatrics?

> Do I need to be to understand statistics and know Thompson, Rivara and
> Thompson 1990 was retracted?

--
Spike

[Brian]

Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 14:45:27 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 25 September 2022 at 16:46:15 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Head Injuries Are the Biggest Problem
>>>>
>>>> Indeed they are.
>>>> Trips and falls around the home are the biggest cause of head injuries.
>>> And they kill almost as many as there are road deaths. What’s your solution
>>> to that?
>
>> There is no simple solution. The majority of road deaths from head
>> injuries occur within motor vehicles
>
> Cite the authoritative data…

He is probably using something like this :

https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/uk-road-safety


Which tells only part of the story. For example: You need to adjust the
car/motorcycle/ cycle numbers for miles driven / usage / etc, otherwise you
get a distorted picture. Also, pedestrians don’t spent most of their time
on the roads - just when crossing etc. In general, cars / motorcycles
don’t stray onto pavements - obviously there are accidents etc. Cycles use
roads and, sadly, pavements more than they should.


Basically, using the raw data to give the answer he wants rather
interpreting it. Two types of people do this. Simpletons and the dishonest.

[TMS320]

On 27/09/2022 09:04, Brian wrote:
> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There is no simple solution. The majority of road deaths from head
>>> injuries occur within motor vehicles
>>
>> Cite the authoritative data…
>
> He is probably using something like this :
>
> https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/uk-road-safety
>
> Which tells only part of the story. For example: You need to adjust the
> car/motorcycle/ cycle numbers for miles driven / usage / etc,

The word "majority" implies an absolute number which does not need to be
adjusted for mileage.

As it happens, the mileage adjusted death rate (all causes, not just
head injuries), is lower for cyclists than pedestrians.

[Spike]

Yes, the pro-cycling anti-driver agenda in this group, and in the wider
cycling world, is quite unsophisticated in its nature, and is quite easily
countered.

One of my favourites occurs in the anti-helmet agenda, which was the
wittering of a Swedish doctor commenting on the number of children killed
by using cycling helmets inappropriately (to play in on swings etc) when he
said “We can point to who we have killed, but we cannot point to any that
we have saved”. That is breathtaking in its naïveté, but has been used to
justify the anti-helmet agenda by the simpletons and the dishonest.


--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 22:35:11 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 14:45:27 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 25 September 2022 at 16:46:15 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Head Injuries Are the Biggest Problem
> >>>
> >>> Indeed they are.
> >>> Trips and falls around the home are the biggest cause of head injuries.
> >> And they kill almost as many as there are road deaths. What’s your solution
> >> to that?
>
> > There is no simple solution. The majority of road deaths from head
> > injuries occur within motor vehicles
> Cite the authoritative data…

Do your own research.

> > so mandatory driving helmets would seem the obvious solution.
> > Unfortunately this would make motorists feel safer and they would take
> > more risks which would cause more pedestrian and cycle deaths.
> Would….would…would…
>
> No speculation there, then. 🙄

Homeostasis of risk is well documented.

> >>> Time for mandatory House Helmets.
>
> >> We can point to who we have killed but to none we have saved.
>
> > Just like cycle helmets.
> Whoosh…

Indeed you do seem to have trouble grasping the simple concept that it is impossible to prove a cycle helmet saved a life. There are far too many examples of cycle helmets not saving lives.

> >>> Is that Fred Rivara of the most discredited peer reviewed paper in the
> >>> history of science which proved cycle helmets prevent 75% on knee injuries?
>
> >> Are you a professor of paediatrics?
>
> > Do I need to be to understand statistics and know Thompson, Rivara and
> > Thompson 1990 was retracted?

Strange you did not reply to this.

[Spike]

Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 22:35:11 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 14:45:27 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 25 September 2022 at 16:46:15 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Head Injuries Are the Biggest Problem
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed they are.
>>>>> Trips and falls around the home are the biggest cause of head injuries.
>>>> And they kill almost as many as there are road deaths. What’s your solution
>>>> to that?
>>
>>> There is no simple solution. The majority of road deaths from head
>>> injuries occur within motor vehicles
>> Cite the authoritative data…
>
> Do your own research.
>
>>> so mandatory driving helmets would seem the obvious solution.
>>> Unfortunately this would make motorists feel safer and they would take
>>> more risks which would cause more pedestrian and cycle deaths

>> Would….would…would…

>> No speculation there, then. 🙄

> Homeostasis of risk is well documented.

You don’t seem to be able to grasp when you are making speculative
assertions.

>>>>> Time for mandatory House Helmets.
>>
>>>> We can point to who we have killed but to none we have saved.

>>> Just like cycle helmets.

>> Whoosh…

> Indeed you do seem to have trouble grasping the simple concept that it is
> impossible to prove a cycle helmet saved a life. There are far too many
> examples of cycle helmets not saving lives.

That is so breathtakingly ignorant it isn’t worthy of comment.

>>>>> Is that Fred Rivara of the most discredited peer reviewed paper in the
>>>>> history of science which proved cycle helmets prevent 75% on knee injuries?
>>
>>>> Are you a professor of paediatrics?
>>
>>> Do I need to be to understand statistics and know Thompson, Rivara and
>>> Thompson 1990 was retracted?
>
> Strange you did not reply to this.

You posed it, you explain it.


--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

On Tuesday, 27 September 2022 at 20:16:27 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 22:35:11 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
> >> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 26 September 2022 at 14:45:27 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
> >>>> Mike Collins <cmik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, 25 September 2022 at 16:46:15 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Head Injuries Are the Biggest Problem
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Indeed they are.
> >>>>> Trips and falls around the home are the biggest cause of head injuries.
> >>>> And they kill almost as many as there are road deaths. What’s your solution
> >>>> to that?
> >>
> >>> There is no simple solution. The majority of road deaths from head
> >>> injuries occur within motor vehicles
> >> Cite the authoritative data…
> >
> > Do your own research.
> >
> >>> so mandatory driving helmets would seem the obvious solution.
> >>> Unfortunately this would make motorists feel safer and they would take
> >>> more risks which would cause more pedestrian and cycle deaths
> >> Would….would…would…
>
> >> No speculation there, then. 🙄
>
> > Homeostasis of risk is well documented.
> You don’t seem to be able to grasp when you are making speculative
> assertions.

You are asserting there is no such thing as homeostasis of risk? Can you provide evidence to support this?

> >>>>> Time for mandatory House Helmets.
> >>
> >>>> We can point to who we have killed but to none we have saved.
>
> >>> Just like cycle helmets.
>
> >> Whoosh…
>
> > Indeed you do seem to have trouble grasping the simple concept that it is
> > impossible to prove a cycle helmet saved a life. There are far too many
> > examples of cycle helmets not saving lives.
> That is so breathtakingly ignorant it isn’t worthy of comment.

Please provide evidence from the peer reviewed literature where it has been conclusively proven a cycle helmet has saved a life.

> >>>>> Is that Fred Rivara of the most discredited peer reviewed paper in the
> >>>>> history of science which proved cycle helmets prevent 75% on knee injuries?
> >>
> >>>> Are you a professor of paediatrics?
> >>
> >>> Do I need to be to understand statistics and know Thompson, Rivara and
> >>> Thompson 1990 was retracted?
> >
> > Strange you did not reply to this.
> You posed it, you explain it.
>

Clearly you know nothing about research.
The published article is
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405121/pdf/amjph00225-0049.pdf

As an aside you should look up Gary Kleck, it's know as conclusion led research.

>
> --
> Spike

[Spike]

And how does using the word ‘would’ four times in two short sentences
provide sound support for your statement about risk taking?

>>>>>>> Time for mandatory House Helmets.
>>>>
>>>>>> We can point to who we have killed but to none we have saved.
>>
>>>>> Just like cycle helmets.
>>
>>>> Whoosh…
>>
>>> Indeed you do seem to have trouble grasping the simple concept that it is
>>> impossible to prove a cycle helmet saved a life. There are far too many
>>> examples of cycle helmets not saving lives.
>> That is so breathtakingly ignorant it isn’t worthy of comment.

> Please provide evidence from the peer reviewed literature where it has
> been conclusively proven a cycle helmet has saved a life.

Now you’re playing the fool.

>>>>>>> Is that Fred Rivara of the most discredited peer reviewed paper in the
>>>>>>> history of science which proved cycle helmets prevent 75% on knee injuries?
>>>>
>>>>>> Are you a professor of paediatrics?
>>>>
>>>>> Do I need to be to understand statistics and know Thompson, Rivara and
>>>>> Thompson 1990 was retracted?
>>>
>>> Strange you did not reply to this.
>> You posed it, you explain it.
>>
>
> Clearly you know nothing about research.
> The published article is
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405121/pdf/amjph00225-0049.pdf
>
> As an aside you should look up Gary Kleck, it's know as conclusion led research.

How does any of that explain the stupid statement by the Swedish doctor?



--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

Are you still in denial about risk compensation?

> >>>>>>> Time for mandatory House Helmets.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> We can point to who we have killed but to none we have saved.
> >>
> >>>>> Just like cycle helmets.
> >>
> >>>> Whoosh…
> >>
> >>> Indeed you do seem to have trouble grasping the simple concept that it is
> >>> impossible to prove a cycle helmet saved a life. There are far too many
> >>> examples of cycle helmets not saving lives.
> >> That is so breathtakingly ignorant it isn’t worthy of comment.
>
> > Please provide evidence from the peer reviewed literature where it has
> > been conclusively proven a cycle helmet has saved a life.
> Now you’re playing the fool.

Can you cite a case where it was proven a cycle helmet saved a life or not?

[Spike]

Let me ask you a question. It is this: Why do cyclists demand that
infrastructure be installed to meet their needs?

--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

Just answer the question and leave the goalposts where they are.
Can you or can you not cite a case where it has been proven a cycle helmet made the difference between life and death?

[Mike Collins]

The infrastructure for pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists is already in place, they are called roads. Unfortunately freeloading motorists use their vehicles as weapons to scare primary road users into submission.
Ask yourself this: You are walking on a footway and you have to pass a side turning are you willing to assert your right of way over a turning motor vehicle knowing you will come off worse?

[Spike]

Can you cite a single case where one of the thousands of road laws has
saved a life?

Thought not.

Can you cite a single case where cycling infra has saved a life?

Thought not.

So on your logic, we might as well get rid of all road laws and cycling
infra… 🙄

--
Spike

[Spike]

Whatever had that got to do with anything?

Put those goalposts back where you found them.

--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

That should be obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than a turnip.

>
> Put those goalposts back where you found them.

They were missing, you seem to have them.

Still waiting for that cite of a case where a cycle helmet has been proven to save a life.

[Spike]

I’m waiting for anyone to cite a case where a covid jab has been proven to
save a life.

--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

Does anyone know if speed limits apply to goalposts?

[Spike]

We know who we have killed, but we cannot point to a single one who was
saved by moving the goalposts.

--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

Thank you for proving my point.
We can show cases where a cycle helmet has not saved a life but cannot prove a cycle helmet has ever saved a life.

[Spike]

At last!

You have finally realised the stupidity of the logic lying behind the
Swedish doctor’s original statement.

The list is huge for cases like that, because the premise is flawed:

- road laws
- food safety laws
- food provision
- motorcycle helmets
- driving tests
- eyesight tests
- improvements to air quality
- air traffic control
- aircraft safety
- aircraft construction

….the list is endless, and in not one of them can anyone point to any
particular person that has been saved by any of the measures.

But the thoughtless world of cycling, probably alone in the universe, takes
such a flawed statement and uses it, essentially, to allow people to be
killed. And they lecture others on safety.


--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

Um, you were the one arguing in favour of cycle helmets, not me.

[Spike]

You seem to have snipped something.



--
Spike

[Mike Collins]

What?