Wife & Whether to Helmet or not to Helmet
Bestest Handsander
that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
instructed that I should die.
So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?
Phil, Squid-in-Training
> My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish
> provided that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no
> brain damage or permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries
> are sustained, I am instructed that I should die.
Uh... sounds like a personal problem.
> So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
> agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?
Hmm. I think the wife needs a bit of reprogramming.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Sorni
Divorce her and take up Duplicate Bridge.
HTH, BS
carl...@comcast.net
Dear BH,
Judging by often-cited statistics from several nations on
cycling head injuries versus helmet use, a helmet won't make
any significant difference.
Your best bet would be to move to a country where cycling is
popular. The fatal accident rate (and the helmet-use rate)
in such countries are typically much lower than in the
United States:
See the graph on the right of this page:
It shows that in 1998, the U.S. twice as many fatal
accidents per mile ridden as the Netherlands, even though
38% of U.S. riders wore helmet, as opposed to 0.1% of the
reckless riders in the Netherlands.
In any case, more husbands are probably murdered every year
by their wives in the U.S. [1] than are killed on bicycles
(about 700-800 husbands, wives, and singles). Consider
wearing a helmet if you criticize her.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
[1] See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mf.pdf for an
example of how tricky statistics are. This often-cited study
of family murders was culled from only 8,000 killings in the
75 most murderous counties 1988--would that there had been
only 8,000 killings.
And would that the government had made the details plainer!
You'd think that it would be easier for bachelors to find
out before the wedding how bloodthirsty the brides are
likely to be, but this obvious question is obscured by
cultural prejudice and bureaucratese.
d...@topowest.com
Too late! Best thing you can do now is get elbow and knee pads.
dl
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:52:37 -0600, "Bestest Handsander"
> <bestesth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
> >that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
> >permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
> >instructed that I should die.
> >
> >So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
> >agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?
>
> Dear BH,
>
> Judging by often-cited statistics from several nations on
> cycling head injuries versus helmet use, a helmet won't make
> any significant difference.
>
> Your best bet would be to move to a country where cycling is
> popular. The fatal accident rate (and the helmet-use rate)
> in such countries are typically much lower than in the
> United States:
>
> See the graph on the right of this page:
>
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
>
> It shows that in 1998, the U.S. twice as many fatal
> accidents per mile ridden as the Netherlands, even though
> 38% of U.S. riders wore helmet, as opposed to 0.1% of the
> reckless riders in the Netherlands.
I'll bet speed is an important factor. Cyclists in the US I'm guessing
tend more to be fitness-types who are probably riding on average much
faster than the average Dutch rider. In The Netherlands, you get all
sorts of normal people and old ladies riding bikes around at 3 mph in
addition to their fitness-types. Sure you can get seriously injured
getting doored at 3mph, but crashing at 25mph is a much better way to
ensure adequate injury!
Joseph
lime...@gmail.com
There are only 2 reasons NOT to wear a helmet.
A ) You don't have a brain.
B ) You have a spare head.
If you're not sure which choice would be better for you, you don't need
to wear one. :-)
Lewis.
******
John Forrest Tomlinson
<bestesth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
>that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
>permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
>instructed that I should die.
Ask her if she looks forward to pushing you around in wheelchair due
to your spinal injuries while your brain and mouth still function
fine.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
mike.a...@gmail.com
The US Weather service recommends helmets
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11765409
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Must be that time of year for this crappola....
Marz
The only reason I wear a helmet when road riding is to keep the peace
at home. She thinks it'll save my life and I know it's a worthless
piece of foam, but I can't be arsed to have the arguement so I wear it.
Laters,
Marz
Tim McNamara
lime...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that parrots the helmet industry's marketing claims very neatly.
Unfortunately, as Carl Fogel summarized, the evidence does not provide
convincing evidence that helmets actually help. It would have been
really nice if the protective effect was clear. But who knows if
eventually more data will provide better power of discrimination about
this.
RonSonic
All of those crime statistics should come with strict warnings about their use
by untrained personnel. In the lingo of governmental crime reporting a "friend
or acquaintance" is a person you know by name (at least that's the standard used
by responding police officers nationwide). So if the crack dealer you've been
chasing off your storefront for weeks takes a pop at you the "friend or
acquaintance" box will be checked.
Family member for purposes of these statistics also includes baby-daddies just
released from prison following a domestic abuse conviction who slug down a quart
of beer after months of abstinence and are disappointed in not being welcomed
back with well, let's presume months of abstinence, these types end up on both
sides of the homicide equation. Being more successful than most stalkers, though
otherwise undistinguished, they are counted as family members for the
statistics.
Ron
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
There are all sorts of arguments about why the statistics don't show so
much about how much a helmet helps, vs what sort of people use helmets
and what sort of people get into accidents. It can be argued that a
helmet does not really provide any protection. But does anyone argue
that a helmet is the cause of injury? I don't think so. So using a
helmet won't hurt you, and possibly will help. I think I'll wear one.
Joseph
Richard B
news:IfOdnQnYfcC...@aros.net:
I suppose it depends on what you are going to hit.
Head, helmet or not, vs. Auto;
Head will lose.
Head without helmet vs. curb;
Head will probably lose.
Head with helmet vs. curb;
Chances are better that you will not end up with a depressed skull
fracture.
Head without helmet vs. pavement;
Possible head abrasions or lacerations, concussion or skull fracture
Head with helmet vs. pavement;
Reduced chance of abrasions, lacerations, concussion or skull fracture.
I wear a helmet:
I hit some debris on a class 1 bike trail and took a header a year ago.
I ended up unconscious on the bike trail, covered with blood from a head
wound that took 11 stitches to close and had a minor concussion.
After a year my only remaining symptom is some mild positional vertigo
when I look straight up.
I do not think I would have fared so well had I not been wearing a
helmet.
In the end it is your choice.
Rich
Werehatrack
will tell you both no and yes.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Sorni
> There are all sorts of arguments about why the statistics don't show
> so much about how much a helmet helps, vs what sort of people use
> helmets and what sort of people get into accidents. It can be argued
> that a helmet does not really provide any protection. But does anyone
> argue that a helmet is the cause of injury? I don't think so.
Sadly, some on here DO say that. Can you say zealotry?
> So
> using a helmet won't hurt you, and possibly will help. I think I'll
> wear one.
Me too.
POHB
Sorni
Styrofoam-whipped much? Be a man! Leave with it on so she sees you, then
ditch it. (Unless, of course, you really DO think wearing a helmet might
just be a smart thing to do?)
Practice this phrase: "Yes, dear."
BS
Sorni
> Do not go to the Newsgroups for answers to this question, for they
> will tell you both no and yes.
You may be right.
Bestest Handsander
news:c4d152lo65joqt210...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:52:37 -0600, "Bestest Handsander"
> <bestesth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish
>>provided
>>that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
>>permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
>>instructed that I should die.
>
> Ask her if she looks forward to pushing you around in wheelchair due
> to your spinal injuries while your brain and mouth still function
I think she would argue that it has never been proven that both have ever
functioned properly. :)
Bestest Handsander
news:1146142097.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Oh come on, Peter. Reversal of desired outcome is a time honored method of
analysis. It forces both sides to reexamine their assumptions to determine
if they are still valid within another modality.
jtaylor
<joseph.sa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146148275.1...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> There are all sorts of arguments about why the statistics don't show so
> much about how much a helmet helps, vs what sort of people use helmets
> and what sort of people get into accidents. It can be argued that a
> helmet does not really provide any protection. But does anyone argue
> that a helmet is the cause of injury? I don't think so.
(some) helmet manufacturers include with their products literature that
specifically states the increased risk of torsion injuries and disclaims
manufacturers' responsibility for such.
And a study recently published in the CMA Journal shows that following the
helmet law, injury rates increased.
Thinking (or NOT thinking, in your case) is no substitute for research.
jtaylor
"Richard B" <blueSPAMME...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97B251A1E2505bl...@216.168.3.50...
>
> In the end it is your choice.
>
>
Not everywhere, and where it is not, we all have to bear the increased
health costs.
41
joseph.sa...@gmail.com wrote:
It can be argued that a
> helmet does not really provide any protection. But does anyone argue
> that a helmet is the cause of injury? I don't think so.
Au contraire. Helmets are both a direct cause of injury and a
contributing factor, for the following reasons:
(1) They increase the size and mass of the headform.
(2) Soft-shell helmets increased friction and no doubt seriously
contributed to injuries in the past. This problem was corrected.
(3) Especially with the football-shaped helmets in fashion for the past
15+years and the foreseeable future, the lever arm is substantially
increased, and torsional effects are among the most devasting in head
injury.
(4) Psychological effects: with helmets, risky behaviour is perceived
as less so.
(5) In children, the straps have caused strangulation leading to actual
death, when children e.g. climbed trees or playground equipment while
still wearing the helmets.
(6) The statistical trends show increased rates of head injury with
increasing helmet use, not less.
The possible protective effects of helmets in the narrow range of
crashes within their specs must be contrasted with the sum of all these
opposing factors. So far, the statistics say they lose.
I
41
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:52:37 -0600, "Bestest Handsander"
> <bestesth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
> >that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
> >permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
> >instructed that I should die.
>
> Ask her if she looks forward to pushing you around in wheelchair due
> fine.
It seems to me she has already addressed that unequivocally: he is
intructed to die. Apparently this is also the case if e.g. he loses a
thumb.
41
Richard B wrote:
> I wear a helmet:
> I hit some debris on a class 1 bike trail and took a header a year ago.
> I ended up unconscious on the bike trail, covered with blood from a head
> wound that took 11 stitches to close and had a minor concussion.
> After a year my only remaining symptom is some mild positional vertigo
> when I look straight up.
>
> I do not think I would have fared so well had I not been wearing a
> helmet.
Consider that more fully. Suppose you had not been wearing a helmet.
Would you have taken the ride on that class 1 bike trail at all? Would
you have walked around whatever the obstacle was?
Perhaps you would have fared much better without the helmet after all.
H. Guy
>cycling head injuries versus helmet use, a helmet won't make
>any significant difference.
i've been riding my bike several times a week for 40+ years.
of those, i've worn a helmet every time for the past 30+ years.
i'd estimate that, over the years, i've spent 15,000-20,000 hours
wearing a helmet without incident. one day a few years ago, i went
down, HARD, landed on my left side and my helmet-shod head slapped
the pavement. i walked away with a bruised hip, a lot of road rash
and a broken helmet.
did my helmet save me from serious injury? dunno, but judging from
the rest of the left side of my body i'd say that chances are good
that it did. statistically speaking, the ride that day was around
0.012% of my total time with the helmet. and i'd have to say that
that statistically insignificant event, FOR ME, made the other
wasted uses of the helmet worthwhile.
while my chances of escaping injury, according to statistics from
several nations, may not have been appreciably improved by my use
of the helmet, i myself judge that they improved significantly for
my purposes on that afternoon.
YMMV, and i would never think of legislating your use of this
device. nor would i wish to support you should this omission render
you incapable of supporting yourself.
jtaylor
"41" <KingGe...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1146155909.4...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> joseph.sa...@gmail.com wrote:
> It can be argued that a
> > helmet does not really provide any protection. But does anyone argue
> > that a helmet is the cause of injury? I don't think so.
>
> Au contraire. Helmets are both a direct cause of injury and a
> contributing factor, for the following reasons:
> (3) Especially with the football-shaped helmets in fashion for the past
> 15+years and the foreseeable future, the lever arm is substantially
> increased, and torsional effects are among the most devasting in head
> injury.
Here's a quote from the Australian National Health and Medical Research
Council:
"Whilst helmets may possibly reduce the incidence of scalp lacerations and
other soft tissue injury, there is the risk that helmets may actually
increase both the cerebral and non-cerebral injury rates. ... The addition
of a helmet will increase both the size and mass of the head. This means
blows that would have been glancing become more solid and thus transmit
increased rotational forces to the brain and may increase diffuse brain
injury".
So the trade-off is save my scalp being cut and risk damaging my brain. It
seems that people who wish to wear cycle helmets don't actually need one...
Phil, Squid-in-Training
> increasing helmet use, not less.
Is there a place we can see these statistics? Are they publicly available?
I'm interested to know.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Sorni
> i've been riding my bike several times a week for 40+ years.
> of those, i've worn a helmet every time for the past 30+ years.
>
> i'd estimate that, over the years, i've spent 15,000-20,000 hours
> wearing a helmet without incident. one day a few years ago, i went
> down, HARD, landed on my left side and my helmet-shod head slapped
> the pavement. i walked away with a bruised hip, a lot of road rash
> and a broken helmet.
>
> did my helmet save me from serious injury? dunno, but judging from
> the rest of the left side of my body i'd say that chances are good
> that it did. statistically speaking, the ride that day was around
> 0.012% of my total time with the helmet. and i'd have to say that
> that statistically insignificant event, FOR ME, made the other
> wasted uses of the helmet worthwhile.
>
> while my chances of escaping injury, according to statistics from
> several nations, may not have been appreciably improved by my use
> of the helmet, i myself judge that they improved significantly for
> my purposes on that afternoon.
>
> YMMV, and i would never think of legislating your use of this
> device. nor would i wish to support you should this omission render
> you incapable of supporting yourself.
This post is alarmingly reasonable. {pause} CUT IT OUT!!!
41
H. Guy wrote:
> i'd estimate that, over the years, i've spent 15,000-20,000 hours
> wearing a helmet without incident. one day a few years ago, i went
> down, HARD, landed on my left side and my helmet-shod head slappe d
> the pavement. i walked away with a bruised hip, a lot of road rash
> and a broken helmet.
>
> did my helmet save me from serious injury?
I had the identical accident, perhaps more severe judging from the
injuries to my shoulder and legs, but without the helmet. My head never
contacted the pavement and received no impact. The position of the mark
on my shoulder (still there after almost two years) proves that had I
been wearing a helmet, my helmet-shod head would have slapped the
pavement before the impact was absorbed by deformation of my shoulder.
Additionally, the side-angled blow would have resulted in major
torsion, likely leading to significant brain injury.
> YMMV
russell...@yahoo.com
> My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
> that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
> permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
> instructed that I should die.
>
> agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?
I'd say wear a helmet. If you are in an accident with a vehicle, the
helmet won't make much difference. You'll be dead or not by luck. But
most accidents I see are people crashing by themselves, on railroad
crossings, potholes, with other bikes, pedals breaking, etc. On these
low speed low impact accidents, the helmet works to keep your head from
being cracked open. So what could be a lengthy serious possibly
lifelong injury becomes a mild concussion that you recover from in a
week or so. This would fit your requirements as cited of either dying
or recovering quickly without permanent brain damage.
lime...@gmail.com
convincing evidence that helmets actually help. )
The thing is, dear old Carl, for whom I have a lot of respect has not
survived the few wrecks that I have and which have given me irrefutable
evidence of the worth of a helmet.
Also, FWIW, (and you can quote me on this) it is an inevitable
consequence of riding a 2 wheeled vehicle that you WILL fall off.
Kind regards.
Lewis.
******
Leo Lichtman
"41" wrote: (clip) My head never contacted the pavement and received no
two years) proves that had I been wearing a helmet, my helmet-shod head
would have slapped the pavement before the impact was absorbed by
deformation of my shoulder. Additionally, the side-angled blow would have
resulted in major torsion, likely leading to significant brain injury.
This is what call "tortured logic." The injury to your shoulder *proves*
nothing about what a helmet would have done. I can just as easily say that
it *proves* that by absorbing some of the energy, it would have lessened the
injury to your shoulder.
41
Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
> > (6) The statistical trends show increased rates of head injury with
> > increasing helmet use, not less.
>
> Is there a place we can see these statistics? Are they publicly available?
> I'm interested to know.
"A" place? Not exactly. But there is lots around, so much so that it
would take me quite a while to compile a list of the best for you. You
could start here:
<http://www.helmets.org/time2001.htm>
This is in OPPOSITION to the claim I made, but I think the response is
telling.
Here is a grab-bag of references gleaned from somewhere I don't recall,
some for some against the position above. As you can see they are
older. Some of them conclude one thing, but if you look in more detail,
in fact the data show the opposite. The links may be expired. If I
recall the last two are in favor of helmets but the second to last
showed they lead to a 36% increase in neck injuries while the last
shows they lead to an 80% increase. Have fun.
Kennedy A, The pattern of injury in fatal pedal cycle accidents and the
possible benefits of cycle helmets, British Journal of Sports Medicine,
Vol 30(2):130-133, 1996
Robinson DL, Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws, Accident Analysis
and Prevention 28(4):463-475, 1996
Hendrie D et al., An economic evaluation of the mandatory bicycle
helmet legislation in Western Australia, Proceedings, Insurance
Commission of Western Australia Conference on Road Safety
Available at:
www.transport.wa.gov.au/roadsafety/papers/bicycle_helmet_legislation.html
Robinson D, Helmet Laws and Health, Injuy Prevention 4(3):170-172, 1998
Available at: http://lash.une.edu.au/~drobinso/ozdoc.html
Attewell RG et al., Bicycle helmet efficacy: a meta-analysis, Accident
Analysis and Prevention 33(3):345-352, 2001
Available at: www.atsb.gov.au/road/research/cr-195.pdf
McDermott FT et al., The effectiveness of bicyclist helmets: A study of
1710 casualties, The Journal of Trauma 34(6):834-44, 1993
_
41
You missed the point, perhaps I was not clear. The position of the mark
was, at maximal compression of my shoulder, scarcely outside the
outline of my head. With a helmet, that outline would have extended out
something like 1"+ on the side and much more to the front and back. The
impact was not square and would have spun my head around like a tether
ball. There is a mark on my shoulder but no lasting probem.
6
Michael Press
<1146148275.1...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
joseph.sa...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
> There are all sorts of arguments about why the statistics don't show so
> much about how much a helmet helps, vs what sort of people use helmets
> and what sort of people get into accidents. It can be argued that a
> helmet does not really provide any protection. But does anyone argue
> that a helmet is the cause of injury? I don't think so. So using a
> helmet won't hurt you, and possibly will help.
This argument is not settled.
* A helmet struck an off-axis blow will impart a larger
torque to the neck, than will an off-axis blow to a head
with a cloth cap.
* It is proven that people in all situations, and
bicyclists in particular, adjust upward their risk taking
when provided with measures they believe will decrease the
harmful consequences of contrary events. `I would never
ride that descent without a helmet.'
Of all the anecdotes I have heard, the only one that
convinces me is that a helmet is useful riding trails with
low tree branches.
--
Michael Press
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Thanks... I'll check out Medline, too.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Espressopithecus
KingGe...@yahoo.fr says...
previous poster. I would speculate that a fall with forces high enough
to cause a helmeted head to hit the ground and crack the helmet, the
neck may not be strong enough to resist the lateral forces, thus
allowing an un-helmeted head to strike the pavement.
Undoubtedly, there are falls in which helmets prevent or mitigate injury
and falls in which they don't. I'm unaware of statistics that indicate
whether experienced cyclists are better or worse off wearing a helmet.
Unless more specific data exists, whether helmets are
safer/neutral/worse for typical RBT readers looks to me like
speculation. But it does prove one thing -- inadequate information
fuels great arguments! ;-)
Rick
Jay Beattie
I've had this same fall with and without a helmet. This is the benefit
of living in a wet environment with steep hills and off camber corners.
Without a helmet, I did strike my head, but the impact was absorbed
primarily by my shoulder and hip. So, I had a headache for a while. I
think I had a minor scalp ow-ee. Lots of great scabs elsewhere.
With the helmet, there was no aditional rotation of my head, although
the helmet rotated a little and the headlock band gouged my forehead. I
was surprised by that. I had a head ache but no scalp laceration,
though. I broke two ribs, which was far worse than anything that
happened to my head.
I've had some real nasty OTBs where the helmet clearly did help prevent
scalp injury. As for fatal or near fatal brain injury, helmets help
prevent focal injuries, meaning injuries caused by an object depressing
an area of the skull. They do not particulary help diffuse rotational
injuries where the head snaps back and forth and the brain sloshes
around in the cranium. Nothing can prevent those types of injuries
AFAIK -- and in fact some helmets make them worse -- the headgear
boxers wear when sparring actually increases rotational injuries (this
is according to an expert I use). -- Jay Beattie.
peter
> Thanks... I'll check out Medline, too.
There was a recent article in the British Medical Journal (March 2006
BMJ) on the real-world effectiveness of bicycle helmets. A copy of the
article along with a (not very convincing) rebuttal by helmet advocates
is available at:
http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/march/ac722.pdf
Also of interest are reader responses to the two articles:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/725
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/722
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/722-a
Many of these contain relevant statistics as well as those found in the
articles themselves.
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
I wear a heavy helmet to make my neck strong, so I don't need to worry
about torsional injuries.
Just kidding. It is interesting to see the different perspectives and
situations (like torsional injuries) that I never thought of before. As
you say no substitute for research. I learn something new every day.
Joseph
Cam
Sorni wrote:
> Styrofoam-whipped much? Be a man! Leave with it on so she sees you, then
> ditch it. (Unless, of course, you really DO think wearing a helmet might
> just be a smart thing to do?)
>
> Practice this phrase: "Yes, dear."
>
On my commute I see lots of people who hang their helmet from the bars.
I always assumed thety had really nice bars but you've given me another
explanation.
Cam
Jay Beattie
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1146148275.1...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> joseph.sa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > There are all sorts of arguments about why the statistics don't show so
> > much about how much a helmet helps, vs what sort of people use helmets
> > and what sort of people get into accidents. It can be argued that a
> > helmet does not really provide any protection. But does anyone argue
> > that a helmet is the cause of injury? I don't think so. So using a
> > helmet won't hurt you, and possibly will help.
>
> This argument is not settled.
>
> * A helmet struck an off-axis blow will impart a larger
> torque to the neck, than will an off-axis blow to a head
> with a cloth cap.
I am still waiting to see all the people with neck injuries -- and I've
been waiting since about 1975 when this argument was first made with
the Bell Biker. Modern microshell helmets are pretty slippery, and in
combination with their minimalist profiles, they may even reduce
rotational injury to the neck. Who knows. I am not aware of single
study using a modern helmet -- or any study -- that proves this point.
> * It is proven that people in all situations, and
> bicyclists in particular, adjust upward their risk taking
> when provided with measures they believe will decrease the
> harmful consequences of contrary events. `I would never
> ride that descent without a helmet.'
>
> Of all the anecdotes I have heard, the only one that
> convinces me is that a helmet is useful riding trails with
> low tree branches.
You will get tons of anecdotes about people who crushed their helmets
in various accidents. You can assume that the energy absorbed by the
helmet would have been absorbed by the scalp and scull absent the
helmet. They have their uses. -- Jay Beattie.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<Helpf...@helpfulplace.org> wrote:
>one day a few years ago, i went
>down, HARD, landed on my left side and my helmet-shod head slapped
>the pavement. i walked away with a bruised hip, a lot of road rash
>and a broken helmet.
>
>did my helmet save me from serious injury? dunno, but judging from
>the rest of the left side of my body i'd say that chances are good
>that it did.
What is serious injury? Brain damage (concussion or worse) or a
broken bone? Considering that your brain in encased in a "helmet" of
bone, and that bone is fairly thick in most places, I don't see how
the bruising to soft tissue on other parts of your body can tell you
what would have happned to your skull or brain w/o a helmet. Or did
you actually break other bones in your body?
I believe your helmet saved you from a lot of
bleeding/scraping/bruising on your head.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
peter
> Michael Press wrote:
> > This argument is not settled.
> >
> > * A helmet struck an off-axis blow will impart a larger
> > torque to the neck, than will an off-axis blow to a head
> > with a cloth cap.
>
> I am still waiting to see all the people with neck injuries -- and I've
> been waiting since about 1975 when this argument was first made with
> the Bell Biker.
Of course we're also still waiting to see the decrease in head injury
related fatalities that was projected to accompany increased helmet
use. Neither the benefit nor potential neck injury increase have been
clearly evident.
> Modern microshell helmets are pretty slippery,
Only until the 'microshell' is abraded away from contact with the road.
> and in
> combination with their minimalist profiles, they may even reduce
> rotational injury to the neck.
The overall width of my current helmet is actually very close to the
same as my Bell Biker. And the projection at the rear is substantially
greater, so I wouldn't be surprised if the possible twisting forces
were at least as great with today's helmets.
> Who knows. I am not aware of single
> study using a modern helmet -- or any study -- that proves this point.
Agreed. It has been discussed but I haven't seen much besides
conjecture as to the likelihood and severity of the problem.
>
> You will get tons of anecdotes about people who crushed their helmets
> in various accidents. You can assume that the energy absorbed by the
> helmet would have been absorbed by the scalp and scull absent the
> helmet.
The broken helmets I've seen after crashes have cracked with very
little evidence of crushing. I.e. comparison of the foam thickness vs.
that of an undamaged helmet showed no substantial difference. That has
been true even when the helmet was initially described as 'crushed'.
But cracking of the helmet foam can be done with very little energy and
is therefore not evidence that significant energy was absorbed by the
helmet during the crash.
> They have their uses.
Yes, I find it to be more comfortable to lie down and catch a quick nap
while wearing a helmet if only hard surfaces are available. The Bell
Biker was better for this with it's more round and symmetrical shape.
Pat in TX
answer before you asked the question. Methinks that makes you a troll.
dusto...@mac.com
joseph.sa...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'll bet speed is an important factor. Cyclists in the US I'm guessing
> tend more to be fitness-types who are probably riding on average much
> faster than the average Dutch rider. In The Netherlands, you get all
> sorts of normal people and old ladies riding bikes around at 3 mph in
> addition to their fitness-types. Sure you can get seriously injured
> getting doored at 3mph, but crashing at 25mph is a much better way to
> ensure adequate injury!
>From my couple of weeks in Holland, the difference is cultural. In
Amsterdam, especially, cyclists seem to be on top of the food chain,
rather than the bottom. Not to mention the red-paved bike lanes,
separate from MV lanes in many cases (reducing dooring and other), and
the paved, separate bike "roads" in places removed from cities, and the
sheer number of cyclists.
Don't kid yourself about the average speed of American dough-ball rec
riders v. a Dutch cyclist hauling ass to work, either. Fortunately,
said commuters are much more patient with dopey tourists standing in
their lane than are American drivers who can't spare a nanosecond for
the life of a cyclist. Of course, the Dutch riders are not ensconced in
two tons of steel... But, no shouting, just a tingling bell and rolling
eyes, in my observation.
--D-y
H. Guy
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> >did my helmet save me from serious injury? dunno, but judging from
> >the rest of the left side of my body i'd say that chances are good
> >that it did.
>
> What is serious injury? Brain damage (concussion or worse) or a
> broken bone?
fractured scapula. my "brain helmet" was intact.
frkr...@gmail.com
Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> I'm unaware of statistics that indicate
> whether experienced cyclists are better or worse off wearing a helmet.
It's my understading that professional racing fatalities are far more
common since helmets became in vogue.
>From http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/
"HELMETS NOT PROTECTING COMPETITIVE CYCLISTS. Ordinary cycling may be
low risk but competitive cycling is looking decidely risky. Perhaps
helmets are encouraging cyclists to take unreasonable risks in a search
for competitive success. In one August week, five racing cyclists died
as a result of separate crashes.
Cyclingnews.com reported that on August 12th the U23 Vuelta Juventud
held during four days in Costa Rica was halted when a leading group of
20 riders crashed into a bus while going down a Cat. 2 hill. A 17 year
old cyclist died. In sanctioned races, cyclists are required to wear a
helmet. On August 15th, Cyclingnews.com reported that on the previous
weekend, a mountain biker landed on his head in a Norwegian
Championship MTB race and died shortly after. Two days later, it
reported another cyclist lost his life in a head-on collision with
another cyclist in Plano, Texas. According to the description the
cyclist was riding counter-clockwise on a circuit route near an
industrial part of southeast Plano when he collided with another
cyclist who was training clockwise on the same course. Both cyclists
were wearing helmets, but one suffered severe head trauma and died soon
after the accident. On August 16th, Cyclingnews.com reported that a cat
4 racing cyclist died of head injuries when he was involved in a
collision with a car in the North Park area of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. The day before, it reported that a cyclist died of severe
head and chest wounds on August 9th when he collided with a truck while
training for a triathlon in Loma Linda, California. In the latter two
cases it was not reported whether helmets were worn but helmet use is
almost universal among American triathletes and racing cyclists."
- Frank Krygowski
frkr...@gmail.com
joseph.sa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> There are all sorts of arguments about why the statistics don't show so
> much about how much a helmet helps, vs what sort of people use helmets
> and what sort of people get into accidents. It can be argued that a
> helmet does not really provide any protection. But does anyone argue
> that a helmet is the cause of injury? I don't think so. So using a
One noted researcher said "A bike helmet might possibly help, if you
could only convince yourself you weren't wearing one."
The implication, of course, is that you can't. And any feeling of
protection is likely to subconsciously generate a small increase in
risk-taking. If the increase in risk taking exceeds the minimal
protection of a helmet, you're probably worse off.
- Frank Krygowski
frkr...@gmail.com
Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
> > (6) The statistical trends show increased rates of head injury with
> > increasing helmet use, not less.
>
> Is there a place we can see these statistics? Are they publicly available?
> I'm interested to know.
Visit www.cyclehelmets.org
Incidentally, there is real difficulty finding information on both
sides of this argument. To illustrate: In the past month or so, I'm
aware of two new papers examining helmet effectiveness.
One was by a medical student. He took four human skulls, filled them
with water, strapped helmets on two of them, and dropped them from
three feet. He claimed the helmets definitely provided "some
protection," therefore bike helmets should be strongly promoted. His
paper was not peer reviewed, and was presented at a small conference.
The other was by a PhD in statistics, whose specialty is (among other
things) ferreting out mistakes in other researchers' statistics. She
examined data from many thousands of cyclists subjected to mandatory
helmet laws for well over ten years, and concluded that the helmets had
no detectable benefit - in fact, made things somewhat worse. This
paper was peer reviewed, and appeared in a very prominent medical
journal.
Which paper do you think got the publicity?
For those who don't see the obvious: Anything that sells helmets gets
trumpeted, no matter how weak it is. Anything that questions helmets
gets muffled, no matter how thorough and rigorous it is.
Now, would this possibly have anything to do with, say, a profit
motive?
- Frank Krygowski
frkr...@gmail.com
russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I'd say wear a helmet. If you are in an accident with a vehicle, the
> helmet won't make much difference. You'll be dead or not by luck. But
> most accidents I see are people crashing by themselves, on railroad
> crossings, potholes, with other bikes, pedals breaking, etc. On these
> low speed low impact accidents, the helmet works to keep your head from
> being cracked open. So what could be a lengthy serious possibly
> lifelong injury becomes a mild concussion that you recover from in a
> week or so.
That's a statement of faith, not of fact.
The best data shows otherwise - that the helmet will make negligible
difference.
- Frank Krygowski
carl...@comcast.net
[snip]
>For those who don't see the obvious: Anything that sells helmets gets
>trumpeted, no matter how weak it is. Anything that questions helmets
>gets muffled, no matter how thorough and rigorous it is.
>
>Now, would this possibly have anything to do with, say, a profit
>motive?
>
>- Frank Krygowski
Dear Frank,
While greed should never be underestimated, I doubt that the
people on RBT who believe that helmets are effective are
trying to make a buck. I think that they're sincere. In
fact, I think that the companies that sell helmets are
sincere, too.
It is human to embrace anything that promises protection.
It is normal to believe the apparent evidence of our own
eyes.
It common to err on the side of presumed safety.
And it is painful to find out that you've been wrong.
During WWII, the RAF asked Freeman Dyson to study the
appalling loss rate of its night bombers. Dyson found that
only two things contributed to survival over Germany at
night: speed and height.
He therefore recommended stripping the bombers of their
guns, turrets, ammunition, and gunners. With less weight and
drag, the bombers could fly higher and faster and would be
more likely to survive.
Dyson's ridiculous suggestion to remove the defensive guns
on the RAF bombers was, of course, rejected. Few soldiers
take kindly to the idea of giving up their weapons.
After the war, it was learned that the Luftwaffe was
shooting most of the RAF bombers down with dull twin engine
night fighters that simply cruised along below the bombers
and blasted them with upward-firing automatic cannons. The
number of bombers that could be shot down was limited only
by how many a fighter could intercept before returning to
base for more fuel and ammunition.
Bombers that flew higher and faster were harder to
intercept.
Unlike the U.S. daylight B-17, the night-time Avro Lancaster
lacked a belly turret, which meant that none of its doomed
gunners could even see their enemy in the darkness below,
much less defend themselves.
Bombers burdened by brave gunners and their equipment flew
lower and slower and were easier to intercept.
Greed had nothing to do with the RAF refusal to pay
attention to Dyson's statistics. It's just terribly hard to
give up what seems like your best hope. I cling hopefully to
the belief that my yellow helmet may save me--it's been
awfully hard to admit that it's not likely to be true.
(Anyone interested in Dyson's other stories can find them in
"Weapons and Hope.")
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
41
Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
>I'll check out Medline, too.
Beware the subtleties. For example, consider the pathetic "rebuttal" to
Robinson's excellent recent article in the BMJ. That group touted (old)
case-"control" studies. Of course, there were no controls: these are
case-reference studies. And what escaped all these old studies, and
what is deliberately hidden nowadays by these partisan ideologues, are
such things as the fact that 35-75% of bicyclists admitted to hospitals
with head injuries are DRUNK. Coincidentally, these drunken bicycle
riders tend not to wear helmets. So, why do they have so many head
injuries: because they are not wearing helmets, or because they are
drunk? Hint: this is why those old studies showed e.g. helmets reducing
the injury rate to knees.
There are suprisingly many drunken bicycle drivers. They are drunk
drivers who got their licences revoked, and who now have to make their
way to and from the bars on bicycles.
d...@topowest.com
> Jeez, see what you've started? Another useless H&^*%met thread. You knew the
> answer before you asked the question. Methinks that makes you a troll.
To borrow a phrase from Peter: Bing! Bing! Bing! We have a winner.
Congrats, Pat! Yours is the only intelligent comment in the thread.
BH is indeed trolling and is undoubtedly wallowing in glory at having
duped everyone into spending time responding. This hit me like a ton
of bricks when he responded to Carl's price point notation with this
bit of open trickery:
>But seriously, you're not suggesting that an item found at Walmart can be
>used to demonstrate that an entire industry can be profitable at their price
>point, are you?
This was a tip-off. Kinda like saying "you're not REALLY suggesting
that red and blue are different colors, are you?!?". Here he flaunts
the fact that he has his audience wrapped around his finger; at this
point can say anything at all, no matter how nonsensical or
content-free -- as long as his tone of voice be that of disdain, his
audience will continue to dance on his strings. Had me going too for a
while.
If there was still any doubt, he removed it with his next response,
also crafted to produce a knee-jerk response, and also completely
content-free:
>Source? I mean this opinion of yours is based upon some data... not just
>your assumptions, correct?
I think he's actually Ed Dolan.
-Doug
Phil, Squid-in-Training
> Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
>> I'll check out Medline, too.
>
> Beware the subtleties. For example, consider the pathetic "rebuttal"
> to Robinson's excellent recent article in the BMJ. That group touted
> (old) case-"control" studies. Of course, there were no controls:
> these are case-reference studies. And what escaped all these old
> studies, and what is deliberately hidden nowadays by these partisan
> ideologues, are such things as the fact that 35-75% of bicyclists
> admitted to hospitals with head injuries are DRUNK. Coincidentally,
> these drunken bicycle riders tend not to wear helmets. So, why do
> they have so many head injuries: because they are not wearing
> helmets, or because they are drunk? Hint: this is why those old
> studies showed e.g. helmets reducing the injury rate to knees.
Not only that, but they're often high, too.
> There are suprisingly many drunken bicycle drivers. They are drunk
> drivers who got their licences revoked, and who now have to make their
> way to and from the bars on bicycles.
In my locale, the penalty for drunk bicycle riding is exactly the same as
in/on a motorized vehicle. You won't ever find me getting caught RUI.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
In my opinion there are only 5 types of cyclists (arranged below in
increasing order of dangerousness to themselves and others):
Tourists with panniers and trailers and beards.
Practical users ranging from Chinese-food delivery guys to recumbent
riding commuters.
Fitness types ranging from chubby couples with matching windbreakers
and hybrids to Lance wannabes.
Thrill seekers ranging from DH/FR nutcases to fixed-gear in traffic
messengers.
And the drunk you mention. We've all seen him. He's wearing a stained
Member's Only jacket, has about 100 keys hanging from his belt, velcro
sneakers, a worn out baseball cap, and an old rusty 10-speed with the
drop bars twisted back so the brake levers are pointing straight up. He
usually has a plastic bag swinging from said bars as he careens around
in oblivion. Needless to say, he does not wear a helmet.
Joseph
PS: I'm just having some fun, don't anyone get too worked up about it.
Tim McNamara
frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
> > > (6) The statistical trends show increased rates of head injury
> > > with increasing helmet use, not less.
> >
> > Is there a place we can see these statistics? Are they publicly
> > available? I'm interested to know.
>
> Visit www.cyclehelmets.org
>
> Incidentally, there is real difficulty finding information on both
> sides of this argument. To illustrate: In the past month or so,
> I'm aware of two new papers examining helmet effectiveness.
>
> One was by a medical student. He took four human skulls, filled them
> with water, strapped helmets on two of them, and dropped them from
> three feet. He claimed the helmets definitely provided "some
> protection," therefore bike helmets should be strongly promoted. His
> paper was not peer reviewed, and was presented at a small conference.
And suffers from the fundamental problem that bone is more brittle in
dead people than living people. Not to mention that my head is 6 feet
off the ground when riding my bike, and usually going 18 mph or faster.
> The other was by a PhD in statistics, whose specialty is (among other
> things) ferreting out mistakes in other researchers' statistics. She
> examined data from many thousands of cyclists subjected to mandatory
> helmet laws for well over ten years, and concluded that the helmets
> had no detectable benefit - in fact, made things somewhat worse.
> This paper was peer reviewed, and appeared in a very prominent
> medical journal.
>
> Which paper do you think got the publicity?
>
> For those who don't see the obvious: Anything that sells helmets
> gets trumpeted, no matter how weak it is. Anything that questions
> helmets gets muffled, no matter how thorough and rigorous it is.
>
> Now, would this possibly have anything to do with, say, a profit
> motive?
Not in peer reviewed journals nor in the general media. The helmet
lobby doesn't control much of anything, being quite tiny and advertising
little outside of the bike magazines. It has everything to do with
media bias in general, which is that bicycling is a perilous activity.
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
Ok, I am now convinced that as a public health measure compulsory
helmet laws and safety campaigns are not all they've cracked up to be,
what with all the negative unintended consequences like kids getting
strangled in trees, people not cycling as much due to fear and thus
cyclists not reaching the critical mass necessary for group safety as
is found in places like The Netherlands, etc.
But what about performance in actual crashes? Pointers to info on this?
For my own use, I know I will not be climbing any trees, I have already
chosen to ride no matter what, I use a very light helmet, and I'd like
to think I take no risks I wouldn't otherwise were I not wearing a
helmet. As far as crashing goes, the only thing I am concerned about is
getting hit or clipped by a passing car from behind and going down in a
non-controlled manner. I've had wipe-outs and other lone crashes where
I was somewhat in control and felt as though I was able to keep my head
out of danger. But getting blindsided from behind would be different.
So, when I am flying through the air moments after being hit by a car,
moments from hitting the ground and/or other stationary objects, do I
want a helmet or not? Please point me to info about this. I'm not
worried about the likelyhood of crashing which I know is low.
The things that I dislike about a helmet are the wind-noise that makes
hearing cars more difficult, and the fact that the strap has to be a
bit loose to breath. I worry that the loose strap defeats the whole
purpose.
Joseph
41
Jay Beattie wrote:
> I am still waiting to see all the people with neck injuries -- and I've
> been waiting since about 1975 when this argument was first made with
> the Bell Biker.
I don't know about seeing them, but two studies in the list I gave
showed increases in neck injuries due to helmets. I mixed up the
results, McDermott gave an odds ratio of 1.36. That was a meta-analysis
and it had very few studies which even looked at neck injury to
consider: 3-4, 1990-1997.
> I am not aware of single
> study using a modern helmet -- or any study -- that proves this point.
Are you aware of a single study using a modern helmet that addresses
that point?i
Jay Beattie
41 wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > I am still waiting to see all the people with neck injuries -- and I've
> > been waiting since about 1975 when this argument was first made with
> > the Bell Biker.
>
> I don't know about seeing them, but two studies in the list I gave
> showed increases in neck injuries due to helmets. I mixed up the
> results, McDermott gave an odds ratio of 1.36. That was a meta-analysis
> and it had very few studies which even looked at neck injury to
> consider: 3-4, 1990-1997.
I will look at that. I do have problems with epidemiology
(particularly meta analyses) and causation -- the "due to helmets" bit.
I would be happier with a biomechanical study, which would seem easy
enough to do with cadavers, although cadavers generally do not try to
keep their heads off the pavement when you throw them around. I have
had falls where my head did not even hit the ground, but I strained my
neck trying to hold my head up (at least that was my conclusion -- not
having the benefit of instant replay). -- Jay Beattie.
frkr...@gmail.com
> But what about performance in actual crashes? Pointers to info on this?
Let's think about how this could be determined.
You can't have people perform crashes with and without helmets. Not
only would it be ethically sketchy, you can't duplicate a crash. Bike
crashes are infinitely more chaotic than car crashes. This is because
the mass of the system is so low, and the number of degrees of freedom
of an unrestrained human body are so high, and the effect of muscle
contractions (volunary or not) are so large.
For the same reasons, using crash test dummies on bikes won't work.
Case-control studies are notoriously bad. The problem is, there is no
"control." People who have put helmets on are bound to behave
differently than those who have not, in many unpredictable ways.
What we need is to get rid of the large variations in individual
crashes, by averaging things mathematically. For that, we'll need a
large number of data points. How can we get lots of data on people
crashing with and without helmets, where the people are "the same
type"? That is, not comparing gonzo downhillers with mom's on bike
paths?
One way - perhaps the only way - is to look at a large population of
all types of cyclists, during a time when few of them wear helmets,
then compare to a time when that same population has most of the people
in helmets. See how many head injuries there are per thousand cyclists
in, say, one year.
One way - perhaps the only way - to arrange for a sudden change in
helmet wearing is to force people to suddenly start wearing helmets.
They won't do it in mass unless there's an enforced law on the books,
or maybe soon to be on the books. If you can find such a situation, it
can be a good "before - after" test.
And of course, this has been done. It's specifically this type of
study that shows the least benefit for helmets. In fact, the latest
such study showed negative benefit.
Keep in mind, bike helmets are designed, tested and certified for a
laughably low standard. This is necessary because a really strong
helmet would be unbearable on a bicycle. Helmet proponents never let
on how weak the standard is - but the entire point of Thompson &
Rivara's 1989 paper was to prove that yes, by golly, these super-flimsy
helmets really do work. It wasn't stated that way, and the study was
notoriously faulty, but that was the point.
What real-world, before-after data seems to show is that a helmet
designed, tested and certified for low level collisions actually works
only in low level collisions.
- Frank Krygowski
d...@topowest.com
> I am still waiting to see all the people with neck injuries -- and I've
> been waiting since about 1975 when this argument was first made with
> the Bell Biker. Modern microshell helmets are pretty slippery, and in
> combination with their minimalist profiles, they may even reduce
> rotational injury to the neck. Who knows. I am not aware of single
> study using a modern helmet -- or any study -- that proves this point.
Jay, have you looked for such a study or are you saying that you
haven't found one in your Cheerios, and that no little red-haired girl
has slipped on into your pocket?
Took me about 60 seconds.
http://www.helmets.org/hurtmemo.htm
http://www.hprl.org/
I admit, the pages cited above are not the studies itself/themselves,
they only refer to them.
Doug
carl...@comcast.net
<jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
Dear Jay,
Browse down to "Risk Factors for Serious Injury" in this
link, and you'll come to the phrase, "Neck injuries were
quite infrequent."
http://www.smf.org/articles/report.html
One reason for the small number of neck injuries is that the
neck is much harder to bruise and cut than the head and
shoulders. Razor burn is possible, but road rash is
unlikely.
Another reason for seeing so few neck injuries is simply
that serious injuries are extremely rare. With only about
700-800 bicyclists being killed in the U.S. every year,
you're far more likely to read about someone who kills
himself or is murdered.
As I understand it, there are two main theories about how a
helmet could physically increase injuries.
One problem is that the helmet enlarges the target. It's
surprising how much larger a head with a helmet becomes and
how many more glancing blows are then suffered. (The trail
rider's dilemma is that a helmet protects his scalp better,
but also hits the same branches much more solidly and hits
lots of new branches that his head would have missed.)
The other problem is that the larger sphere of a helmet can
give the head a much more violent wrench, given a glancing
blow. More and more medical studies are emphasizing the
generalized brain injury from rotation, as opposed to the
grisly and obvious wounds and fractures that most of us
automatically think of.
(Psychologically, the risk homeostasis theory is that we
automatically and immediately increase our risk back to its
original level, thwarting almost any well-meant safety
measure. This explains why ABS brakes, traffic lights,
highway reflectors, and so on all fail to reduce accidents.
We just go faster and tailgate closer. The theory makes a
good deal of sense--if we actually wanted to reduce
accidents, we'd slow down and stop tailgating, not pay for
computerized brakes. Here's the original book about RHT:
http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/index.html#contents
See Chapter 7 for the truly irritating examples.)
The only person I've known to die in a bicycle accident was
the uncle of a friend, who broke his neck on a bicycle path
while wearing his helmet, probably by landing in just the
wrong way after his front metal fender broke and grabbed his
front tire.
I suppose that his helmet might have contributed to his
broken neck, but I certainly wouldn't make any claim one way
or the other--like most accidents, it's almost impossible to
reconstruct objectively.
Apropos of neck injuries, the strength of our prejudices
about helmets is illustrated by perfectly sincere posts like
this one from a similar thread a few years ago:
>>Fit is high on the list. If you don't like it, you won't wear it, it
>>won't be there when, not if, you need it. Christopher Reeves became a
>>paraplegic from a fall from a horse. Yes he was higher but dirt is
>>softer than asphalt.
>>Ventillation is up there also.
>>Wear your helmet, smiling beats drooling,
>>Wes
>Dear Wes,
>Without arguing about the merits of helmets . . .
>Reeves suffered a broken neck, not a head injury.
>He became a quadriplegic, not a paraplegic.
>And he was wearing a helmet.
>Carl Fogel
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b69b210b9dbbbfb7
Wes seized on a famous incident and got it pretty much
wrong, point by point. I'm sure that he was sincere and not
trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. But look at that
one familiar point--"when, not if, you need it."
The sincere but ridiculous implication is that everyone who
rides without a helmet will be killed or at least be reduced
to drooling by brain damage. The leap from the assumption
that everyone must fall and hit their head because Wes
himself has fallen and hit his head is succeeded by the
assumption that only a helmet stands between us all and
certain death.
Again, only 700-800 cyclists are killed every year in the
U.S. out of the entire cycling population. For the general
cycling population, it's "if, not when" we fall and hit our
heads, what will a helmet do? It's actually so rare to
suffer serious injury while bicycling that it's perfectly
normal for Jay Beattie to still be waiting to see all those
people with neck injuries caused by helmets--if they do
exist, there will actually be darned few of them.
In one of his books, the late Herbert Klawans remarked that
it's unusual for a neurologist in training to actually see a
patient suffer an epileptic seizure.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>In article <1146196920.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
>> For those who don't see the obvious: Anything that sells helmets
>> gets trumpeted, no matter how weak it is. Anything that questions
>> helmets gets muffled, no matter how thorough and rigorous it is.
>>
>> Now, would this possibly have anything to do with, say, a profit
>> motive?
>
>Not in peer reviewed journals nor in the general media. The helmet
>lobby doesn't control much of anything, being quite tiny and advertising
>little outside of the bike magazines. It has everything to do with
>media bias in general, which is that bicycling is a perilous activity.
Dear Tim,
Bah! Who do you think tells the New York Times what's fit to
print? You'll never make a good conspiracy theorist if you
underestimate the power of the Stonecutters:
Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We Do! We Do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We Do! We Do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We Do! We Do!
Who robs cavefish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We Do! We Do!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonecutters#.22We_Do.22_.28The_Stonecutters.27_Song.29
Number One
Jay Beattie
You wasted 60 seconds. The one link that takes me anywhere with
specific content is merely a report to the ASTM which talks about those
teardrop shaped aerohelmets rotating and exposing bare scalp -- or
coming off -- in a crash I do not see any mention of neck injury -- or
any mention of a study of any population to determine the distribution
of injury among helmet users and non-helmet users.
As for looking in my bowl of Cherios, I follow the literature for
professional reasons. Most everything cited here is old news. If
someone wants to give me a link to a real study where the neck injury
issue is addressed directly and not obliquely, I would be hapy to read
it. -- Jay Beattie.
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
Dear Joseph,
Most of the fuss can be blamed on helmet skeptics, who are
often misunderstood as anti-helmet.
There is general agreement that helmets can protect your
head from road rash, cuts, and minor injuries.
(Stitches, scars, torn-off ears, and so forth may not seem
minor to the victims, but they tend to stop whining at
funerals and rehabilitation centers.)
There is considerable disagreement about how effective
helmets are at reducing serious injury and death.
On the one hand, we have individuals insisting that without
a helmet, they would have been killed, often with pictures.
Skeptics tend to point out a number of familiar logical
fallacies with this approach.
On the other hand, we have no country in which massive
increases in helmet use have been accompanied by even minor
reductions in serious injury and death.
(There is usually a gradual reduction in the cyclist death
rate, but this is unlikely to be caused by helmets. This
gradual reduction generally exists before helmet use rises
and continues after helmet use stabilizes. It is also to
blame for that confusing third line on most graphs, the
pedestrian fatality rate--researchers add that to show us
that pedestrian and cyclist fatality rates decline at the
same gradual rate, even though pedestrians aren't being
saved by helmets.)
On the third hand, we have the risk homeostasis theory that
suggests that if helmets do indeed protect against serious
injury, then we promptly ride more recklessly and end up
killing ourselves at the same rate. As an analogy, ABS
brakes ought to let us drive more safely, but it never
happens. We simply drive faster and closer. The theory is
startling, but well-documented in many traffic situations.
It makes sense in that we could always drive more safely by
slowing down and not following so closely, but we never do.
Instead, we speed up, expecting ABS to save us.
See chapter 7 here for interesting examples:
http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/index.html#contents
This leads to a common answer to your question about
helmets. Many helmet skeptics suggest wearing a helmet, but
riding as if you aren't wearing one. (There is some faint
evidence that a helmet can actually increase the chance of
injury, but "faint" may be too strong a word.)
Unfortunately, risk homeostasis theory suggests that wearing
a helmet and trying to ride as if you aren't is well-nigh
impossible. (But there's no harm in trying to slow down and
ride sensibly.)
Fortunately, bicycling in general is so safe that it's a
tempest in a technical tea-pot. To reassure yourself, you
can look into the appalling pre-1980 bicycling death rate.
Only after the invention of styrofoam helmets did mothers
allow their children to risk their lives on unstable
two-wheeled vehicles. Racers were willing to face death on a
daily basis, but the Tour de France was often cut short due
to the death or injury of all riders.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
d...@topowest.com
> But what about performance in actual crashes? Pointers to info on this?
> For my own use, ...
> <snip>
> So, when I am flying through the air moments after being hit by a car,
> moments from hitting the ground and/or other stationary objects, do I
> want a helmet or not? Please point me to info about this. I'm not
> worried about the likelyhood of crashing which I know is low.
Hi Joseph,
I suggest you get a dirtbike. A bit of experience riding a motorcycle
offroad will answer all your questions. My first dirtbike was a Hodaka
90 which Dad kindly bought me when I was 10. Since then my head has
hit the ground in the desert, the forest, the mountains, in Utah,
Colorado, Idaho, and all over western Nevada and northern and southern
California. Falling is part of the sport, like in skiing, and if you
are JRA, putting around, cowtrailing, sightseeing, or trail riding
just for fun, or practicing donuts or wheelies in your back yard, then
you still fall at least a couple time a day, at least if you're a klutz
like me -- and you basically don't get hurt in these low speed falls.
And you experience your head hit the groud lightly many times.
This experience precludes any and all helmet related questions. There
simply no unknowns. About anything whatsoever. Nada, None, Zip. You
will forever recognize anti-helmet tatements as either sheer ignorance
or trollz.
It will also likely be the most fun you have ever had outside of the
bedroom. WAY more fun than riding mtn (or road) bicycles and way more
safe.
Also, after riding dirtbikes you feel crazy just to ride a mountain
bike without padded long sleeves and padded long pants, plastic on
elbows and knees and shins, boots, and a full-face helmet. In fact, as
I've said here before, in '96 I left my bike helmet on a picnic bench
somewhere in the sawtooth mtns. So that day when mtn biking I just
used my moto helmet. Got crossed up over some tree roots and did a
face-plant, and have never looked back. The trails in the santa cruz
mountains tend to be up all the way to the top, then down all the way
home, so I just hang the moto helmet by the chinbar from the left grip
on the way up, when I'm crawling along at walking speed on dirt roads
with no rocks.
Offroad motorcycling will not only teach you beyond any doubt about the
usefulness of helmets, it will also make it obvious to you that bicycle
helmets are woefully inadequate. Falling from your mtn bike with a
full-face helmet on is a very eye-opening experience. You will be
aghast at the thought of using anything less after that.
dkl
d...@topowest.com
> ... I follow the literature for
> professional reasons. Most everything cited here is old news. If
> someone wants to give me a link to a real study where the neck injury
> issue is addressed directly and not obliquely, I would be hapy to read
> it. -- Jay Beattie.
Hey now we're getting somewhere! But to what literature do you refer?
dkl
russell...@yahoo.com
No. Its a fact I have seen first hand several accidents where the
rider smacked his helmet clad head into the pavement. 10-15 mph.
Helmet was crushed. Head had a mild concussion. Riders were driven to
the hospital for a check, instead of an ambulance being called. Riders
were back riding a week or so later. With new helmets.
What facts do you think are not facts in the above statement?
>
> - Frank Krygowski
frkr...@gmail.com
d...@topowest.com wrote:
>
> Offroad motorcycling will not only teach you beyond any doubt about the
> usefulness of helmets, it will also make it obvious to you that bicycle
> helmets are woefully inadequate. Falling from your mtn bike with a
> full-face helmet on is a very eye-opening experience. You will be
> aghast at the thought of using anything less after that.
>You
> will forever recognize anti-helmet tatements as either sheer ignorance
> or trollz.
So, to summarize:
To demonstrate the value of bicycle helmets, you should do a completely
different activity, one that calls you to frequently crash.
That activity will prove to you that bike helmets are woefully
inadequate.
And anyone who doubts the value of a woefully inadequate helmet for an
activity where people _don't_ frequently crash is a troll.
Wonderful logic!
- Frank Krygowski
Alex Rodriguez
says...
>My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
>that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
>permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
>instructed that I should die.
>
>So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
>agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?
It's a crapshoot. No way to predict. It's like trying to make that decision
when you figure out you are about to crash and can't avoid it. In that
split second you can decide to ride off the cliff or run into a car. Which of
the choices will get you minimal damage or maximal damage? You can never tell.
---------------
Alex
Jay Beattie
Anything in a peer reviewed journal -- usually with a MedLine cite and
in English (no offense to Sandy or the multilinguals on this NG). If
it is just posted on one of those agenda driven websites (pro or con),
forget it. -- Jay Beattie.
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
Dear Russell,
I doubt that Frank would argue that you have not seen
helmeted riders fall and survive with mild concussions.
But he may be wondering how many unhelmeted riders you have
seen suffer "lengthy serious possibly lifelong injuries" in
similar falls?
The invention of styrofoam helmets in the early 1980's was
not accompanied by any significant reduction in such serious
injuries.
To re-phrase things as nicely as possible, it is a matter of
fact that you have seen people with helmets crash and suffer
mild concussions. But it is a matter of faith or prediction
that a crash injury would have been significantly worse
without a helmet. Since nation-wide records fail to support
the prediction, "faith" is a reasonable description.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
d...@topowest.com
I do not disagree; my point is that the statement "I am not aware of
..." is totally useless without context, in other words, where you have
looked. "Anything in a peer reviewed journal" does not help. Tell
us what journals you read regularly, and which you read sometimes, etc,
otherwise your statement is value-free.
Doug
d...@topowest.com
> russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > I'd say wear a helmet. If you are in an accident with a vehicle, the
> > helmet won't make much difference. You'll be dead or not by luck. But
> > most accidents I see are people crashing by themselves, on railroad
> > crossings, potholes, with other bikes, pedals breaking, etc. On these
> > low speed low impact accidents, the helmet works to keep your head from
> > being cracked open. So what could be a lengthy serious possibly
> > lifelong injury becomes a mild concussion that you recover from in a
> > week or so.
>
> That's a statement of faith, not of fact.
It is both. The two are not mutually exclusive. What you meant was
that it is a statement of faith, not of knowlege. No reason you can't
make a leap of faith and arrive at a fact.
It would also be a leap of faith to say that the sun is going to rise
tomorrow. We cannot know that. And it doesn't matter. Whether or not
it is known to us or is a fact or not is totally completely irrelevant.
It is so likely that we may as well assume/pretend to know it for
sure.
I remember what it feels like to hit my head on the playground, among
other things. I have also crashed and hit my head while wearing a bike
helmet. I know a little about styrafoam from poking it with my
fingers. I, like Russell, don't need conclusive scientific evidence or
proof to have arrived at fact - and to know it - through reasoning.
Why I am responding to a troll, -that- I don't understand.
d...@topowest.com
> The invention of styrofoam helmets in the early 1980's was
> not accompanied by any significant reduction in such serious
> injuries.
Who cares? A trivial resuction would be worth obtaining, especially if
you are the individual to whom it happens or doesn't.
Remember, the likelihood of an event happening is only half the
equation. The price to be paid if it does is the other.
d...@topowest.com
> d...@topowest.com wrote:
> >
> > Offroad motorcycling will not only teach you beyond any doubt about the
> > usefulness of helmets, it will also make it obvious to you that bicycle
> > helmets are woefully inadequate. Falling from your mtn bike with a
> > full-face helmet on is a very eye-opening experience. You will be
> > aghast at the thought of using anything less after that.
> ...
> >You
> > will forever recognize anti-helmet tatements as either sheer ignorance
> > or trollz.
>
> So, to summarize:
>
> To demonstrate the value of bicycle helmets, you should do a completely
> different activity, one that calls you to frequently crash.
Actually it is a very similar activity. You are really scraping the
bottom of the barrel, troll!
> And anyone who doubts the value of a woefully inadequate helmet for an
> activity where people _don't_ frequently crash is a troll.
You left out sheer ignorance. Again, you are scrapin the bottom of the
barrell for arguments.
> Wonderful logic!
Thanks! Note that all the same statements could all be made about
automobile seat belts, too. Crashing a lot of cars with dummies in
them in a short amount of time will reveal lots about seatbelts, too.
dkl
Jasper Janssen
>I'll bet speed is an important factor. Cyclists in the US I'm guessing
>tend more to be fitness-types who are probably riding on average much
>faster than the average Dutch rider. In The Netherlands, you get all
>sorts of normal people and old ladies riding bikes around at 3 mph in
>addition to their fitness-types. Sure you can get seriously injured
>getting doored at 3mph, but crashing at 25mph is a much better way to
>ensure adequate injury!
Standard speed around here for the regular traffic is between 15 and 25
kph. At 3 mph people fall off their bikes because they're going too slow.
Jasper
Espressopithecus
frkr...@gmail.com says...
>
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> > I'm unaware of statistics that indicate
> > whether experienced cyclists are better or worse off wearing a helmet.
>
> It's my understading that professional racing fatalities are far more
> common since helmets became in vogue.
>
Are you extrapolating that to the ~99% of cycling miles logged by
experienced cyclists while not racing?
Rick
Jay Beattie
What ever comes up on MedLine or on a literature search through Oregon
Health and Sciences University. I don't follow or subscribe to any
particular journals. The last time I requested a comprehensive
literature search was at the end of last summer, so I am probably six
months out of date. Also, my informal source of helmet
information/opinion is a guy named Dr. Wilson "Toby" Hayes.
http://www.hayesassoc.com/biosketch.htm. He is the one who told me that
bicycle helmets do not increase rotational brain injuries but boxing
head gear does. He also was not excited about football helments, IIRC.
He has done a lot of cadaver testing to determine what kind of loading
causes neck injury. -- Jay Beattie.
Barnard Frederick
> Which paper do you think got the publicity?
>
> For those who don't see the obvious: Anything that sells helmets gets
> trumpeted, no matter how weak it is. Anything that questions helmets
> gets muffled, no matter how thorough and rigorous it is.
>
> Now, would this possibly have anything to do with, say, a profit
> motive?
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Nah, it isn't money that's behind it. It is power and control. Nothing
gives some people a boner like telling somebody else what to do, and
best of all to call the cops on them if they aren't doing it.
41
Jay Beattie wrote:
> He is the one who told me that
> bicycle helmets do not increase rotational brain injuries
I would like to know how he arrived at that conclusion and where I can
find the published data.
> He has done a lot of cadaver testing to determine what kind of loading
> causes neck injury.
As there has been over the decades quite a lot of cadaver testing to
determine what kind of loading causes lumbar spine injury. It doesn't
work so well for a variety of reasons. One of them is that, so far at
least, cadavers don't have active musculature, whereas the support and
configuration induced by muscular activity is key to what happens to an
externally applied load in the living body.
41
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2006 09:20:50 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
> <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >41 wrote:
> >> Jay Beattie wrote:
> >>
> >> > I am still waiting to see all the people with neck injuries -- and I've
> >> > the Bell Biker.
> >>
> >> I don't know about seeing them, but two studies in the list I gave
> >> showed increases in neck injuries due to helmets. I mixed up the
> >> results, McDermott gave an odds ratio of 1.36. That was a meta-analysis
> >> and it had very few studies which even looked at neck injury to
> >> consider: 3-4, 1990-1997.
> Browse down to "Risk Factors for Serious Injury" in this
> link, and you'll come to the phrase, "Neck injuries were
> quite infrequent."
>
> http://www.smf.org/articles/report.html
To be clear: (1) Above I said McDermott when I meant to say Attewell.
Attewell et al. was the meta-analysis. McDermott gave an odds ratio of
1.80, this was a single study of 1710 subjects. (2) The smf.org link is
not to either of these studies, but to one of the Rivera-Thompson group
(the conclusions of which have been discredited). Typically, you can't
rely too much on what they write, you have to sift through the data on
your own. "Quite infrequent" turns out to be 2.7%, i.e. about 12% of
the head injuries.
> The other problem is that the larger sphere of a helmet can
> give the head a much more violent wrench, given a glancing
> blow. More and more medical studies are emphasizing the
> gen eralized brain injury from rotation, as opposed to the
> grisly and obvious wounds and fractures that most of us
> automatically think of.
Q
Michael Press
<1146251436.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
> > The best data shows otherwise - that the helmet will make negligible
> > difference.
>
> No. Its a fact I have seen first hand several accidents where the
> rider smacked his helmet clad head into the pavement. 10-15 mph.
> Helmet was crushed. Head had a mild concussion. Riders were driven to
> the hospital for a check, instead of an ambulance being called. Riders
> were back riding a week or so later. With new helmets.
[...]
The groups you ride in, what fraction wear helmets? What
fraction of riders wearing helmets crash and strike their
heads? What fraction of riders not wearing helmets crash
and strike their heads?
--
Michael Press
Jay Beattie
41 wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > He is the one who told me that
> > bicycle helmets do not increase rotational brain injuries
>
> I would like to know how he arrived at that conclusion and where I can
> find the published data.
This was from an ad hoc conversation I had with him at a seminar. This
NG was in the throws of one of its periodic helmet threads, and all the
same old studies were being thrown around. I button-holed Tobey to see
what he thought. He had definite opinions on the beneficial effects of
bicycle helments. He was not so positive about some other helments.
He is on the review committee for the National Operating Committee on
Standards for Athletic Equipment and was reviewing football helmet
studies, IIRC. I didn't bother cross-examining him about where he got
his opinions on bicycle helmets -- it sounded first-hand.
By the way, not to be anal, but that study cited by Carl from the Snell
page concludes "There was no correlation between neck injury and helmet
use or helmet type." Does that not mean what it says?
> > He has done a lot of cadaver testing to determine what kind of loading
> > causes neck injury.
>
> As there has been over the decades quite a lot of cadaver testing to
> determine what kind of loading causes lumbar spine injury. It doesn't
> work so well for a variety of reasons. One of them is that, so far at
> least, cadavers don't have active musculature, whereas the support and
> configuration induced by muscular activity is key to what happens to an
> externally applied load in the living body.
Sounds reasonable, although his studies are usually mention to prove a
not so subtle point like a low DeltaV or axial load will not fracture a
vertabrae or squeeze out a healthy disc, vis., low impacts do not cause
big injuries. The finite element analysis of flesh and bones is kind
of creepy to think about. -- Jay Beattie.
carl...@comcast.net
<jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
[snip]
>The finite element analysis of flesh and bones is kind
>of creepy to think about. -- Jay Beattie.
Dear Jay,
In the pistol world, endless arguments about the most
effective kind of ammunition mirror (in reverse) our helmet
debate:
"In 1904, the Thompson-LaGarde Tests were conducted, in
which various types of rounds being considered at the time
were shot at live cows, though the testing was not very
consistent. The variation in cows aside, they were not all
shot in the same location or all rounds given the exact same
test. The rounds tested included .45 Colt (.45 Long Colt),
7.65 mm Luger, 9 mm Luger, .476 Eley, .38 ACP, .455
Man-Stopper. An example was to shoot a cow, then see how
long it took to die (such as 4 minutes) and kill it with a
hammer if it took too long. Another test was to keep
shooting it until it died. The final test was to shoot at a
hanging cadaver at various distances and rate the effect."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911
Not mentioned in the wiki passage about the U.S. Army pistol
testing is that none of the popular large-caliber ammunition
was capable of penetrating the sample skulls. Only the
high-velocity smaller-caliber 7.65 mm round achieved
success.
One shudders to think of similar helmet tests, but there may
be something to learn from the line "The variation in cows
aside, they were not all shot in the same location . . ."
Ghoulishly,
Carl Fogel
frkr...@gmail.com
Someone asked about "experienced cyclists." I was responding with what
I'd read about racing cyclists, as one subset of "experienced
cyclists."
But I'll admit that racing cyclists are subject to much different (and
doubtless greater) risks than ordinary riders. Similarly, NASCAR
drivers are subjected to much different (and greater) risks than
ordinary motorists.
But I think it's a bit disturbing that racing cycling fatalities seem
to have gone up since helmets became common.
Admittedly, this isn't ironclad. I saw (in a separate discussion
somewhere) where a poster had tablulated all known cyclist racing
deaths. The number of fatalities was always low, but it climbed
significantly since the 1980s. Other factors may be at work - but it's
just another thing that doesn't fit the standard model.
- Frank Krygowski
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> > In article <1146195845.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> > frkr...@gmail.com says...
> > >
> > > Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> > > > I'm unaware of statistics that indicate
> > > > whether experienced cyclists are better or worse off wearing a helmet.
> > >
> > > It's my understading that professional racing fatalities are far more
> > > common since helmets became in vogue.
> > >
> >
> > Are you extrapolating that to the ~99% of cycling miles logged by
> > experienced cyclists while not racing?
>
> Someone asked about "experienced cyclists." I was responding with what
> I'd read about racing cyclists, as one subset of "experienced
> cyclists."
>
> But I'll admit that racing cyclists are subject to much different (and
> doubtless greater) risks than ordinary riders. Similarly, NASCAR
> drivers are subjected to much different (and greater) risks than
> ordinary motorists.
Racing cyclists benefit from closed roads, or at least controlled
access roads. This is quite different from "normal" cyclists. NASCAR
drivers (and racing drivers in general, WRC, F1, etc) have way better
safety equipment than ordinary motorists. Greater risk, less peril.
Joseph
Mike Krueger
frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> But I think it's a bit disturbing that racing cycling fatalities seem
> to have gone up since helmets became common.
I never thought that I'd post to this pointless thread, but an incident
occured today that prompted me to add my 2¢.
First, let me state that I hate wearing a helmet--hate it! When I was
solo riding on Maui, where the roads are smooth as glass, and the bike
lanes are 8 feet wide, I went helmetless many times. The feeling of
freedom with the sun and warm breeze in my hair was exhilarating.
However, here in NJ where danger lurks around every bend, with broken
pavement, potholes, road construction, glass and other debris, cars,
trucks, and feckless fellow riders who don't necessarily know how to
ride in a group, I wouldn't think of going out without my helmet.
On today's ride, a woman in our group failed to navigate some broken
pavement. Her front wheel went out from under her at about 18 mph and
she went down hard enought to fracture her upper arm, shoulder, and
collarbone in three places. We had to scrape her off the pavement. Her
head bounced on the street from the whiplash when she fell, and had she
not been wearing her GIro helmet, I have no doubt that her injuries
would have been even worse.
carl...@comcast.net
<skub...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> But I think it's a bit disturbing that racing cycling fatalities seem
>> to have gone up since helmets became common.
>
>I never thought that I'd post to this pointless thread, but an incident
>occured today that prompted me to add my 2ข.
>First, let me state that I hate wearing a helmet--hate it! When I was
>solo riding on Maui, where the roads are smooth as glass, and the bike
>lanes are 8 feet wide, I went helmetless many times. The feeling of
>freedom with the sun and warm breeze in my hair was exhilarating.
>However, here in NJ where danger lurks around every bend, with broken
>pavement, potholes, road construction, glass and other debris, cars,
>trucks, and feckless fellow riders who don't necessarily know how to
>ride in a group, I wouldn't think of going out without my helmet.
>On today's ride, a woman in our group failed to navigate some broken
>pavement. Her front wheel went out from under her at about 18 mph and
>she went down hard enought to fracture her upper arm, shoulder, and
>collarbone in three places. We had to scrape her off the pavement. Her
>head bounced on the street from the whiplash when she fell, and had she
>not been wearing her GIro helmet, I have no doubt that her injuries
>would have been even worse.
Dear Mike,
No offense intended, but . . .
Whiplash usually means the effect on a neck of when a car
runs into you from behind and your body (and car seat)
accelerate violently forward. The head trails violently
behind, bending your neck backward. The raised backs of car
front seats are intended to stop this by preventing your
head from whipping backward and straining your neck.
(A more violent reverse example involves the fate of
passengers wearing seat belts in airliners that suffer
violent explosions at over 500 mph. Their bodies are
restrained by the harness, but their necks are broken as if
they'd dropped through a hangman's trap because nothing held
their heads back.)
A helmet doesn't reduce whiplash. In fact, the larger head
and helment combination is more likely to hit something and
snap the head backward in a crash as the rest of the body
careens god knows where. The twist and any abrupt rotation
are more likely to cause brain damage in a plain fall with
no motor vehicle or large solid object.
A bicycle helmet would not be likely to save anyone from an
impact that broke an "upper arm, shoulder, and collarbone in
three places"--as usual, the impact in an ordinary fall was
absorbed by the less vulnerable parts of the body. If you do
hit something that hard with a helmeted head, you probably
end up like Christopher Reeves, who landed wrong off his
horse on turf on his helmet and broke his neck.
In short, if your poor friend had hit her head instead of
her shoulder, we'd probably be talking about your late
friend and her broken neck. I'm sorry that she was hurt, but
glad that she survived and that you didn't actually have to
scrape her off the pavement. That phrase is used casually by
people who haven't had to deal with bodies that have gone
under heavy truck wheels. (Think about road-kill.)
Concerning the bouncing of her head, didn't just about every
other part of her body bounce on the street when she fell?
Legs, knees, hips, hands, elbows, and so forth?
It's common and understandable to focus on the head and to
assume that things would have been much worse, but as an
argument, it's a collection of logical fallacies.
Mark Hickey's comment elsewhere in this thread illustrates
one of the weaknesses of this kind of thinking:
"I did put a serious hurting on the truck though - totally
caved in the passenger's side door and put a nice dent in
the rear fender with my knee."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/fbb412dcaa29b1e8
Without Mark's heavy protective knee pad and body armor, I'm
sure that he would never have walked again after that
crash--he dented a truck fender with his knee and caved in
the door.
(Mark, of course, was wearing neither knee pads nor body
armor.)
It certainly seems as if protective padding should reduce
the rate of serious head injuries and deaths for us . . .
But no year-by-year national graph of bicycle fatalty rates
ever shows any significant effect when helmet use increases
dramatically.
Either the helmets don't protect against serious injuries.
Or else several countries are involved in massive conspiracy
to fudge the figures.
Or else the helmets encourage us to ride more dangerously so
that we suffer the same accident rate (the risk homeostasis
theory).
Tell your friend that everyone on RBT hopes that her
shoulder mends.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
41
Jay Beattie wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> By the way, not to be anal, but that study cited by Carl from the Snell
> page concludes "There was no correl ation between neck injury and helmet
> use or helmet type." Does that not mean what it says?
As usual with these folks, no. Their study group was nearly exactly
divided between helmeted and unhelmeted riders. 48 helmeted riders had
neck injury, 43 unhelmeted riders had neck injury. The odds ratio is
1.09. In other words, they did find a correlation, only it was not
significant at the 95% level. In the sloppy vernacular, they could not
be 95% sure that the correlation they did find was not due to chance:
the 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio was 0.72 to 1.65. Of the
three studies that have looked at neck injury, this one gave by far the
lowest odds ratio.
> The finite element analysis of flesh and bones is kind
> of creepy to think about.
Finite element analysis is just fine. The unpleasant task is sawing off
the cadaver head, instrumenting it and slamming it into a brick wall,
or sawing out the spine and testing the intervertebral joints in a
press. Don't kid yourself, especially with the heads, few studies have
been done, that's why we are still using US Air Force data from 1956,
Wayne State data almost as old, and data from other still earlier
studies. And do you wonder why there are no such studies on women.
41
41 wrote:
Don't kid yourself, especially with the heads, few studies have
> Wayne State data almost as old, and data from other still earlier
> studies. And do you wonder why there are no such studies on women.
Oh, I forgot: and children.
Espressopithecus
>
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> > In article <1146195845.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
> > frkr...@gmail.com says...
> > >
> > > Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> > > > I'm unaware of statistics that indicate
> > > > whether experienced cyclists are better or worse off wearing a helmet.
> > >
> > > It's my understading that professional racing fatalities are far more
> > > common since helmets became in vogue.
> > >
> >
> > Are you extrapolating that to the ~99% of cycling miles logged by
> > experienced cyclists while not racing?
>
> Someone asked about "experienced cyclists." I was responding with what
> I'd read about racing cyclists, as one subset of "experienced
> cyclists."
A miniscule subset.
>
> But I'll admit that racing cyclists are subject to much different (and
> doubtless greater) risks than ordinary riders. Similarly, NASCAR
> drivers are subjected to much different (and greater) risks than
> ordinary motorists.
>
> But I think it's a bit disturbing that racing cycling fatalities seem
> to have gone up since helmets became common.
>
> Admittedly, this isn't ironclad. I saw (in a separate discussion
> somewhere) where a poster had tablulated all known cyclist racing
> deaths. The number of fatalities was always low, but it climbed
> significantly since the 1980s. Other factors may be at work - but it's
> just another thing that doesn't fit the standard model.
>
Do you think it might have something to do with the financial rewards of
winning?
Rick
Richard B
news:1146156516.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Richard B wrote:
>
>> I wear a helmet:
>> I hit some debris on a class 1 bike trail and took a header a year
>> ago. I ended up unconscious on the bike trail, covered with blood
>> from a head wound that took 11 stitches to close and had a minor
>> concussion. After a year my only remaining symptom is some mild
>> positional vertigo when I look straight up.
>>
>> I do not think I would have fared so well had I not been wearing a
>> helmet.
>
> Consider that more fully. Suppose you had not been wearing a helmet.
> Would you have taken the ride on that class 1 bike trail at all? Would
> you have walked around whatever the obstacle was?
>
> Perhaps you would have fared much better without the helmet after all.
>
>
Situation:
- Bright sunny day
- Sunglasses
- Narrow, long, dark tunnel
- Steep run down to the tunnel
- Angled approach, you cannot see into the tunnel before entry
- A few days after a rain
- Mud in bottom of tunnel obscuring debris
I do not know what I hit; I do not actually remember the accident.
I do remember being deflected toward the wall; next thing I remember is
waking up with another cyclist asking if I was OK.
Evidence I have gleaned tells me that I managed to turn away from the
wall but the rear wheel dropped into a water drainage channel at the
edge of the trail and sent me flying.
I now approach that particular tunnel (and all unfamiliar tunnels) with
extreme caution and sunglasses off.
I always wear a helmet, class 1 trail or not, accidents are accidents
and by definition are not foreseeable.
If I had seen the obstacle and crashed into it anyway, as your post
infers, I would just be stupid and would not need a helmet.
Rich
frkr...@gmail.com
Richard B wrote:
>
>
> I always wear a helmet...
I seriously doubt that.
> ... class 1 trail or not, accidents are accidents
> and by definition are not foreseeable.
But only bicycle accidents deserve helmets, right? All the rest of
daily life's head injury risks are OK without a helmet.
IOW, you think cycling is inherently very dangerous.
- Frank Krygowski
Jay Beattie
frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard B wrote:
> >
> >
> > I always wear a helmet...
>
> I seriously doubt that.
>
> > ... class 1 trail or not, accidents are accidents
> > and by definition are not foreseeable.
>
> But only bicycle accidents deserve helmets, right?
Yawn. Really Frank, you need new material. I have never fallen in the
shower or hurt my head while walking down the sidewalk -- yet
statistically speaking, those activities are more dangerous than
bicycling. I have, however, had a separated shoulder, two broken ribs
and plastic reconstruction of my face in the last year and a half as
the result of bicycle accidents -- none as the result of risk taking,
unless you consider icy or slick road as risk taking, or riding at
night. It was a very bad year last year, and I'm glad I had a helmet
(and now a new helmet). At a minium, and based on the damage to my
helmet, I saved myself from a few more stitches, maybe even a skull
fracture. With an 80% health plan, ever stitch and skull fracture
counts. -- Jay Beattie.
Richard B
news:1146541851....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> Richard B wrote:
>>
>>
>> I always wear a helmet...
>
> I seriously doubt that.
I do _always_ wear a helmet.
I _always_ wear a seatbelt when I'm the car; passenger or driver.
When I rode a motorcycle I _always_ wore a Shoei full face helmet, boots
and gloves.
>
> IOW, you think cycling is inherently very dangerous.
I do not believe that cycling is more dangerous than any other sport and
in fact I believe it is much safer than most.
I commute 20+ miles daily.
I have ridden over 5K miles since my accident with no difficulties.
I stop at stop signs, red lights and follow the rules of the road.
I ride in traffic, if I think I need the whole traffic lane I take it.
If I need to make a left turn I will use the left turn lane.
Some rock climbers climb with ropes, some climb without ropes.
Some boaters wear lifevests, some chose not to.
Some cyclists wear helmets some don't, I personally chose to wear one.
It is kind of like SCUBA diving, you can chose not to keep some reserve
air in your tank; in all probability, if you time it right, you won't
need it, it sure would be nice to stay down just a little longer. On the
other hand it sure would be nice to have the air if you actually did
need it. Your choice...
I am not telling anyone they must wear a helmet.
In the end everyone has to weigh the risks and the rewards and make
their personal choice no matter what the endeavor in which they choose
to engage.
Rich