Re: Helmets

In article <elvke.1458745$Xk.475461@pd7tw3no>,

Fabrizio Mazzoleni said:

"Zoot Katz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Too many people admit loving their cars more than their kids

If I had a kid I would trade it for a Audi A6 any day.

Ah come on Fabs!

Trade the kid for a Ferrari!.... at least.

Audi = all useless dumb idiots

HAND

I used to think that- until I flipped over a cable I didn't see and landed
on my helmet! I replaced it.

--
Bob Burns
Mill Hall PA
(email is spamtrap)

"Maggie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

So don't bother. Cycling head injuries are rare, helmets are not
proven to prevent any meaningful proportion of serious injuries, and
there are very few "old, bold bikers" - you are probably sufficiently
skilled and risk averse to avoid a crash in the first place.

Relax and enjoy the ride :-)

Guy

I was going to say that, but I thought I would be lynched. I never wear
a helmet when I am cycling around town. I am not a daredevil, I am
usually in a park, the only times I have been hurt so far was while
"walking in front of a cyclist" and at a "rest stop".

IMO - A person who rides like me, usually does not fall on their head.
It is usually a leg scrap for something. Unless this gentleman is into
riding in alot of traffic or pushing himself to the limit....I think he
can get away without a helmet to give him a comfortable ride. I bought
a helmet for the charity ride, if I had not needed it, I probably still
would not have one.
Maggie

Just zis Guy said:

If you think it's worth the discomfort and inconvenience of wearing a
helmet all the time to prevent a once-in-several-years incidence of
pain, then feel free.

It's your head. You can do what you want.

Marty said:

Frank does your car have a spike on the steering wheel?

No, but I drive like it does!

- Frank Krygowski

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

Actually as far as I can see the major difference is not between

helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists, but between those who are risk
averse (and hence usually wear helmets) and those who are not. My
guess is that the OP will fit into the risk-averse category.

Guy

Not really. I think the difference is more like between folks who want
to manage risk and those that are less inclined.
In my own case I participate in activities with far more objective risk
than cycling. For example, back country trad rock climbing. A big part
of the fun of that is that one is able to manage and thus to a large
extent mitigate some very real risk.

To me helmets accomplish just that- the management and mitigation of
risk. However, it seems that the discussions on the subject take on the
air of religious arguments. Folks hold very strong beliefs and thus few
ever change their opinion.

Take aside the issue of compulsory use-which changes the argument from
safety to civil rights. How can it be seriously argued that helmets
"add no additional safety margin." Since many of us have first hand
experience with situations where helmets have prevented or lessened
injury there are at least some excamples. And I have yet to hear a
credible story of a modern helmet causing an injury. So, forget arguing
over the statistical merit of the studies. It may well be that they are
flawed. But that argument is only over how effective helmets might be-
not really over the more simple question "do they provide any marginal
safety."

"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:elvke.1458745$Xk.475461@pd7tw3no:

Quoted message said:

"Zoot Katz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Too many people admit loving their cars more than their kids

If I had a kid I would trade it for a Audi A6 any day.

How about an A4?

gds said:

And I have yet to hear a
credible story of a modern helmet causing an injury.

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/kids.html - children strangled by helmet
strap.

RFM

Fritz M said:

gds said:

And I have yet to hear a
credible story of a modern helmet causing an injury.

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/kids.html - children strangled by helmet
strap.

RFM

Yes, I understand the issues are different for children and the
solution is usually proper supervision--as it is for all things with
children.
But I'll clarify my comments are say that I was talking about adults.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:31:39 -0500, catzz66 <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

It's your head. You can do what you want.

Quite.

Only in some cases the Liddites have made up your mind for you.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On 24 May 2005 09:32:56 -0700, "gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Actually as far as I can see the major difference is not between

helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists, but between those who are risk
averse (and hence usually wear helmets) and those who are not. My
guess is that the OP will fit into the risk-averse category.

Quoted message said:

Not really. I think the difference is more like between folks who want
to manage risk and those that are less inclined.

Well, you say that, but there are six jurisdictions where helmet use
has increased by 40 percentage points or more in a year, and not one
of them shows any measurable change ion head injuries as a percentage
of all cyclist injuries, so clearly the answer is more complex than at
first appears.

Quoted message said:

In my own case I participate in activities with far more objective risk
than cycling. For example, back country trad rock climbing. A big part
of the fun of that is that one is able to manage and thus to a large
extent mitigate some very real risk.

I do too. Driving, for one.

Quoted message said:

To me helmets accomplish just that- the management and mitigation of
risk.

Sure. A very small risk, that of a minor head injury while cycling.
No problem with that.

Quoted message said:

However, it seems that the discussions on the subject take on the
air of religious arguments. Folks hold very strong beliefs and thus few
ever change their opinion.

Up to a point. Yes, there are True Believers and agnostics. But I
was a True Believer once, and so was Frank Krygowski, and I know many
others who have started from that position and ended up as sceptics
after reading the available evidence.

Quoted message said:

Take aside the issue of compulsory use-which changes the argument from
safety to civil rights.

Up to a point - there is a bigger problem there. Helmet laws are
always presented as a "road safety" measure, but there is no reliable
evidence that helmets have ay meaningful effect against motor vehicle
impacts. So it's not just civil rights.

Helmet laws deter cycling. Reduced cycling increases the risk per
remaining cyclist. Helmet laws have increased the risk of cyclist
injury in several jurisdictions.

Quoted message said:

How can it be seriously argued that helmets
"add no additional safety margin."

I have read extensively on this and have concluded that:

* helmets are very effective at preventing minor injuries
* helmets prevent no significant number of serious injuries
* serious injuries are rare anyway
* a cyclist is more prepared to take risks when helmeted
* cyclists who wear helmets voluntarily are likely to be more cautious
than non-wearers

This set of premises explains all the known facts. It explains the
large differences in injuries between helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists
in small-scale case-control studies; it explains the failure of time
trends to show any measurable benefit even where helmet use has
increased, often dramatically and in very short times; it takes due
cognisance of the standards and tests for which helmets are specified;
and it fits pretty all the available research evidence, pro-helmet or
sceptic.

Quoted message said:

Since many of us have first hand
experience with situations where helmets have prevented or lessened
injury there are at least some excamples.

Well, you say that, but I have experienced something exactly like the
classic "helmet saved my life" story - I survived being thrown ten
feet through the air after being hit by a car - and my only protective
headgear was a knitted acrylic balaclava. The number of "helmet saved
my life" anecdotes vastly outweighs the number of unhelmeted cyclists
who die, and there is evidence that actually helmeted cyclists are
more likely to hit their heads in the first place, for whatever
reason. So it's not that simple.

Quoted message said:

And I have yet to hear a
credible story of a modern helmet causing an injury.

There are several documented cases of children being fatally strangled
by helmet straps. But that's not the point - the point is, at the
population level, helmets make no measurable difference. In the few
appraisals I have seen of the relative merits of different cycle
safety interventions, every one has put helmets last.

Provided that you are of the view that helmets are last on the list
after maintenance, lights, riding technique, roadcraft and all the
other things that prevent crashes in the first place, and provided you
are not going to say that helmets save lives or protect against motor
vehicle collisions, then we have no disagreement whatever. I used to
wear one always, now I wear one sometimes. I wear it more when the
weather is wet and the roads slippery, less in summer.

Quoted message said:

So, forget arguing
over the statistical merit of the studies. It may well be that they are
flawed. But that argument is only over how effective helmets might be-
not really over the more simple question "do they provide any marginal
safety."

No, that is not the right question. In terms of serious injuries at
least, it appears to be thus: helmets may or may not reduce the
probability of injury given crash, and may or may not increase the
provability of crash given ride, but the probability of injury given
ride remains the same.

The helmeted cohorts in some studies were more likely to crash. The
unhelmeted cohorts in others were more likely to suffer broken legs.
The evidence is simply too equivocal to make any definitive statement.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On 24 May 2005 12:26:04 -0700, "gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'll clarify my comments are say that I was talking about adults.

Heh! If you exclude children the evidence for helmet efficacy is even
more tenuous!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:20:05 GMT, "Bob Burns"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I used to think that- until I flipped over a cable I didn't see and landed
on my helmet! I replaced it.

And I crashed head first into the road wearing a leather hairnet
helmet and was OK aside from mild concussion, and I survived being
thrown ten feet through the air by a car because my knitted acrylic
balaclava Save My Life (tm). I know two seventy-year-olds who
suffered similar crashes at similar speeds and landed head-first, the
helmeted rider died, the unhelmeted one is fine.

Things are not always what they seem.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

On 24 May 2005 12:26:04 -0700, "gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'll clarify my comments are say that I was talking about adults.

Heh! If you exclude children the evidence for helmet efficacy is even
more tenuous!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Not a problem! I am not for compulsion. You just keep depending on
balaclava. But doesn't it get awfully hot on long climbs?

Just zis Guy said:

On Tue, 24 May 2005 09:31:39 -0500, catzz66 <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

It's your head. You can do what you want.

Quite.

Only in some cases the Liddites have made up your mind for you.

Your opinion doesn't matter to me.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 16:46:39 -0500, catzz66 <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Quoted message said:

Only in some cases the Liddites have made up your mind for you.

Your opinion doesn't matter to me.

That's a coincidence - your opinion doesn't matter to some
governments. Funny, that.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On 24 May 2005 13:58:04 -0700, "gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Not a problem! I am not for compulsion. You just keep depending on
balaclava. But doesn't it get awfully hot on long climbs?

Heh! In summer I wear a cotton cycling cap or a Tilley hat.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

And there is also the consistent confounding of two separate issues.
Safety and Compulsion. They are not the same thing and need to be
understood separately.

Trust me, I understand them both.

Guy
--

But you must admit you almost always link them!

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I know two seventy-year-olds
who suffered similar crashes at similar speeds and landed
head-first, the helmeted rider died, the unhelmeted one is fine.

So what was this a side by side simultaneous crash....how neat and
coincidental. Sounds bogus no matter how (if) it happened.

gds said:

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

And there is also the consistent confounding of two separate issues.
Safety and Compulsion. They are not the same thing and need to be
understood separately.

Trust me, I understand them both.

Guy
--

But you must admit you almost always link them!

They need to be linked. It's very useful to look at the results of
helmet compulsion when you're trying to evaluate the supposed benefit
of helmets.

When the law slaps helmets on all cyclists (or, at least, on all who
don't give up riding because of it) you get an opportunity for the most
unbiased evaluation of the effects of helmets. And it's the studies of
those situations that show the lowest values for helmet benefit. In
fact, the results are often _negative_, as in, _more_ serious head
injuries per remaining rider.

By contrast, the studies that predict wonderful benefits for such thin
foam hats are almost invariably small studies where the subjects chose
on their own whether to wear a helmet.

In the most famous case, wealthier white folks who had excellent health
insurance and who rode mostly on bike paths and fell mostly on soft
surfaces while wearing helmets were compared with more "ethnic" folks
with lesser health care who rode mostly on streets and had more
collisions with hard surfaces and cars... and who wore no helmets.
(Probably couldn't afford them.) This resulted in a supposed 85%
reduction in head injury due to the helmets. Marvelous!

Other statisticians examining the data, however, noted that the helmets
also apparently provided a 73% reduction in injuries to _other_ parts
of the body! Hmmm. Magic hats, indeed! Or, much more likely, a
_very_ faulty study.

That study is still the most oft-quoted by helmet proponents. That's
despite the fact that entire nations have imposed and enforced helmet
laws on _all_ cyclists, and seen nothing like that result. (In fact,
the only way they can claim fewer head injuries is to ignore that there
are FAR fewer cyclists.)

In summary: People who voluntarily choose a helmet are likely to be
different from people who voluntarily don't. It's very difficult to
tell which effects are due to hat choice, and what effects are due to
thin styrofoam. For better data, look to places where people were
forbidden to choose.

And keep in mind that in many places, the results of bogus studies have
been used to forbid people to choose.

- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 24 May 2005 23:48:08 GMT, Mike Latondresse

mikelat@no_spam_shaw.ca said:

Quoted message said:

I know two seventy-year-olds
who suffered similar crashes at similar speeds and landed
head-first, the helmeted rider died, the unhelmeted one is fine.

Quoted message said:

So what was this a side by side simultaneous crash....how neat and
coincidental. Sounds bogus no matter how (if) it happened.

It's anecdotal evidence, which is always bogus. The point is simple
that all those "helmet saved my life" stories are equally bogus.

One good way to work out whether helmets save any measurable number of
serious injuries is to track the way injury profiles change with
helmet use in large populations. Our Department for Transport did
that and concluded that there is no known case where cyclist safety
has improved with increasing helmet use.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound