Helmets

S. Anderson said:

Sorry, can't resist..have to post this.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/parenting/05/11/bike.helmets.reut/index.html

I wonder if it is significant that one of the Sponsors of the Safe Kids
campaign is Bell Sports? Or that the report is the result of a
national field study by the national Safe Kids Campaign and Bell Sports,
and commissioned by Bell Sports.

A quick read of the report seems to indicate that helmets are the only
answer to bicycle injuries that we need. Copies available at
www.safekids.org and www.bellsports.com.

The study states that "Helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head
injury by as much as 85 percent and the risk of brain injury by as much as
88 percent". Their source for this is the Thompson, Rivara & Thompson
study mentioned in so many helmet threads.

S. Anderson said:

Sorry, can't resist..have to post this.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/parenting/05/11/bike.helmets-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/parenting/05/11/bike.helmets-
.reut/index.html
Let the games begin!! :-p
Cheers,
Scott..

a) condensed version: http://tinyurl.com/yveuy

b) no controversy for me. Helmet, helmet, helmet. MTB riding Saturday in
Big Bear (SoCal 'mountains.'😉. Downhill stretch. Didn't see the
boulder. Flush on the uphill side, but covered in sand. Two foot drop
on the downhill side. Going slowly enough that the front just dropped
off--about 90 degrees down--whipping me over the bars and drilling my
(Bell helmeted) head into the next largest rock.

Helmet now has a four inch hole in it, but the head is (only as intact
as it was before the fall).

c) As I've said on this forum before: 90% of the time, I'm on two
wheels: bicycle or motorcycle. I don't think there should be any law
forcing the use of a helmet, but 1) you won't find me without mine,
and 2) maybe they should limit insurance medical coverage for those
who don't wear them??

Neil

--

neil0502 said:

2) maybe they should limit insurance medical coverage for those
who don't wear them??

Uh huh - state and federal legislators that know more about fine
tuning medical coverage than the insurance companies.

If the insurance companies see enough correlation, or the need to
follow it up more closely, they will. And they will more than adjust
premiums to account for it. We don't need another law.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

S. Anderson said:

Let the games begin!! :-p

Cheers,

Scott..

OK, Let's see. Using their own numbers, 134 children died. Using the
80% figure, that means that 107 died from brain injury (lets assume
that this was brain injury alone and not, say, one of several
fatality-level injuries incurred in the same accident). Let's assume
that helmets will eliminate 100 % of these fatalities. 107 over
27,700.000 users? That's a ratio of .000386281%. Hey, let's round it
off to .0004%.

And we can take the injuries down to about what? Well, probably no
change of significance. The current reported injuries are about 1 %
and most of those are not serious, beyond what you also get in soccer
and playing tag.

Actually, walk into any sports rehab center and you don't see many
kids there from cycling. My bad left knee has let me make multiple
anecdotal assessments, and those places are filled with soccer kids in
the summer and basketball in the winter.

Yet 'Soccer Moms' are not met with scorn and derision for putting
their kids at risk. From all evidence from the pundits, it appears
they are even allowed to vote.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

"neil0502" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

2) maybe they should limit insurance medical coverage for those
who don't wear them??

or cycle at night with dark clothes
or swim without a life jacket
or slice bagels without gloves
or shower standing up
or climb trees
or type without an ergo keyboard
or ski without body armor
or eat meat
or eat too many carbs
or too few carbs
or drive a car (source of 50% of all head injuries)

How bout we just eliminate insurance altogether?

Pete

On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:18:05 GMT, neil0502
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

As I've said on this forum before: 90% of the time, I'm on two
wheels: bicycle or motorcycle. I don't think there should be any law
forcing the use of a helmet, but 1) you won't find me without mine,
and 2) maybe they should limit insurance medical coverage for those
who don't wear them??

The latter would be perverse. British courts have repeatedly held
(based on the best expert evidence) that helmets are not a significant
factor in injury mitigation, a view which is backed by
population-level statistics.

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 Washington University

Pete said:

"neil0502" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

2) maybe they should limit insurance medical coverage for those who
don't wear them??

or cycle at night with dark clothes or swim without a life jacket or
slice bagels without gloves or shower standing up or climb trees or type
without an ergo keyboard or ski without body armor or eat meat or eat
too many carbs or too few carbs or drive a car (source of 50% of all
head injuries)
How bout we just eliminate insurance altogether?
Pete

Good with all of that, including the total elimination part. For me, if
the decision is to have insurance, I'd rather my rates be determined by
individual contract, taking into account my risk factors--not those of
the huddled masses. At work, I pay the same thing as 400 pound Betty who
lives on Cheetos and Marlboros and takes the elevator to the 2nd floor.
I'd rather not.

The slippery slope argument is always a ton of fun, but . . . some risk
factors . . . over years of study . . . across huge sample sizes . . .
are reasonably well established. It's never been my sense that the
actuaries and their Stygian tables are the issue (they have an
inordinate amount of data at their disposal). To me, the issue has been
the business and marketing people who set pricing relative to each of
these risk factors.

If we're prone to exaggerating the case for effect, I'll pose this
hypothetical: you're on a 757 with 250 other passengers. You're not
quite comfortable wearing your seatbelt, so you don't.

On takeoff, a tire blows out on the nose wheel of the landing gear. All
the passengers are bruised and sore from the event, but you've flown
into the plane's ceiling and fractured your skull. I'm genuinely not
sure why the airline should be liable for your catastrophic injuries if
the remaining passengers lack of same reasonably proves that your
unwillingness to wear a belt caused your fracture.

--

neil0502 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Pete said:

"neil0502" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

2) maybe they should limit insurance medical coverage for those who
don't wear them??

or cycle at night with dark clothes or swim without a life jacket or
slice bagels without gloves or shower standing up or climb trees or type
without an ergo keyboard or ski without body armor or eat meat or eat
too many carbs or too few carbs or drive a car (source of 50% of all
head injuries)
How bout we just eliminate insurance altogether?
Pete

The slippery slope argument is always a ton of fun, but . . . some risk
factors . . . over years of study . . . across huge sample sizes . . .
are reasonably well established.

Yes, they are. And AFAIK, the available and well established data do
NOT indicate a) that cycling is unusually dangerous, or b) that
helmets significantly reduce the danger.

Do you have data indicating otherwise? If so, you should post it so
it can be discussed.

In any case, it seems you are yet another cyclist who is - weirdly
enough - trying to disparage cycling. In fact, you're going beyond
merely slandering this beneficial activity. You're actually inspiring
people to take away the legal rights of cyclists. Absolutely foolish.

I've trimmed your totally irrelevant fantasy story about seatbelts in
airplanes. Stick to the point.

-- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:02:41 GMT, neil0502
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

On takeoff, a tire blows out on the nose wheel of the landing gear. All
the passengers are bruised and sore from the event, but you've flown
into the plane's ceiling and fractured your skull. I'm genuinely not
sure why the airline should be liable for your catastrophic injuries if
the remaining passengers lack of same reasonably proves that your
unwillingness to wear a belt caused your fracture.

OK, so now provide an example where an increase in helmet use has
resulted in a reduction in the rate of serious and fatal injuries to
cyclists. Note key word "rate" - i.e. if the injury number drops by
20% but the numbers cycling drop by 35% or more (cf. Australia) the
rate has increased.

If you have an example the British Government would like to hear from
you. They were forced to conclude that there is none.

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 Washington University

Just Zis Guy said:

OK, so now provide an example where an increase in helmet use has
resulted in a reduction in the rate of serious and fatal injuries to
cyclists. Note key word "rate" - i.e. if the injury number drops by 20%
but the numbers cycling drop by 35% or more (cf. Australia) the rate has
increased.
If you have an example the British Government would like to hear from
you. They were forced to conclude that there is none.
Guy

Happy to exchange information, Guy, but what you're doing here doesn't
strike me as exchange. Would you be so kind as to post a link from the
British Government that shows that there is no correlation between
helmet use and crash-related injuries?

Thanks much....

--

On Thu, 13 May 2004 23:48:08 GMT, neil0502
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Happy to exchange information, Guy, but what you're doing here doesn't
strike me as exchange. Would you be so kind as to post a link from the
British Government that shows that there is no correlation between
helmet use and crash-related injuries?

It was accepted during the recent debate on a mandatory helmet law
(which was defeated, by the way). The claim was, I think, made in an
exchange of letters with a national cycling organisation, I have asked
for chapter and verse. It is possibly from DfT Research Report 30,
2002, whch is currently being revised to remove factual inaccuracies.

As to the concept of exchange, I am puzzled by the comment. I have
just spent a considerable amount of time combating a helmet law in the
UK which was promoted on the basis of dodgy statistics, half-truths,
distortion and exaggeration. I learned a lot along the way, things
like the precise weaknesses with Thompson, Rivara and Thompson's
original Snell-funded study, and I am happy to share them with all
comers. I spent many hours analysing hospital admissions data, and
was able to reduce the claimed number of serious cycling head injuries
used in debate from tens of thousands to a rather more accurate few
hundreds annually. The claim of 50 child deaths was also found to be
more than double the real figure. The suggestion that this was due to
under-reporting (of child deaths?!) was quickly dispatched.

I was originally pro helmet and pro compulsion for children. A review
of the evidence from places where compulsion and aggressive promtion
have been tried was sufficient to persuade me to change my mind.

Now the Irish handwringers are out for a law, using the usual "it's
not a fashion statement, it's a vital safety measure" arguments. How
come the vital safety measure was never thought vital until Bell had a
product to sell, I wonder? How come the "vital safety measure" has
never resulted in a measurable reduciotn in cyclist injuries?

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 Washington University

On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:44:42 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It was accepted during the recent debate on a mandatory helmet law
(which was defeated, by the way).

In a letter from David Jamieson (roads minister) to Michael Jack, MP.

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 Washington University