helmets

dreaded said:

Hello out there, I would like to offer my opinion about wearing a helmet. I
see a lot of posts that suggest it doesn't help to wear a helmet and some
even suggest it can be more hazardous to wear one (?). I think it's foolish
to go without a helmet as it is foolish to go without various types of
insurance. I work in the surgery dept at a major trauma center and suggest
that my experience is not just anecdotal. We treat trauma cases every day
and head injuries are the worst sort. A bruise to the head can easily be
fatal. After the intitial bruise the pressure inside the skull builds up
over time eventually cutting off oxygen for the rest of the brain. If we get
to you soon enough you may survive with only limited damage but you may have
to learn to walk or speak again. Almost all of the serious and/or fatal
closed head injuries from bike accidents we see are from the lack of a
helmet. I'm sure there will be some strongly voiced opposition to this
opinion from those who feel that helmets don't help (and smoking is good for
you!). Well, fire away if you please. There is nothing more convincing than
a hopeless case of a 12 year old brain dead girl who got knocked off her
bike by a careless parent. Or a 15 year old skateboarder who smacked the
pavement once too many times who's parents now have to decide whether or not
to let them go and donate the organs.
-al

So, what percentage of the serious brain injuries at your trauma center
happen on bikes? I'm quite curious, and hope you'll respond.

You know that for the USA as a whole, it's about 1%. Right?

Do you therefore recommend helmets for the other 99% too? If so, you
must drop in on lots of Usenet groups!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

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

Quoted message said:

dreaded said:

Hello out there, I would like to offer my opinion about wearing a

helmet. I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

see a lot of posts that suggest it doesn't help to wear a helmet and

some

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

even suggest it can be more hazardous to wear one (?). I think it's

foolish

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to go without a helmet as it is foolish to go without various types of
insurance. I work in the surgery dept at a major trauma center and

suggest

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that my experience is not just anecdotal. We treat trauma cases every

day

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and head injuries are the worst sort. A bruise to the head can easily be
fatal. After the intitial bruise the pressure inside the skull builds up
over time eventually cutting off oxygen for the rest of the brain. If we

get

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to you soon enough you may survive with only limited damage but you may

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to learn to walk or speak again. Almost all of the serious and/or fatal
closed head injuries from bike accidents we see are from the lack of a
helmet. I'm sure there will be some strongly voiced opposition to this
opinion from those who feel that helmets don't help (and smoking is good

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you!). Well, fire away if you please. There is nothing more convincing

than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a hopeless case of a 12 year old brain dead girl who got knocked off her
bike by a careless parent. Or a 15 year old skateboarder who smacked the
pavement once too many times who's parents now have to decide whether or

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to let them go and donate the organs.
-al

So, what percentage of the serious brain injuries at your trauma center
happen on bikes? I'm quite curious, and hope you'll respond.

You know that for the USA as a whole, it's about 1%. Right?

Do you therefore recommend helmets for the other 99% too? If so, you
must drop in on lots of Usenet groups!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

I haven't taken down any data but I can specifically remember five deaths in
the last six months-maybe about 2 or 3% of all the traumas are from bike
crashes (ie bike v car, bike v tree, bike v pole etc.), of those the worst
prognosis is almost always from the head trauma (maybe as much as 90% of
fatal bike crashes from head injury). So we see a lot of bike crash victims,
but from the ones who hit their head it's always much worse- ask any
neurosurgeon. My original point is that while most people think their skull
is their natural helmet may not understand what happens when the skull meets
something like pavement or a rock or whatever. I would much rather take the
same blow to any other part of my body rather than the head. I see
statistics which can be used to say helmets dont help like: helmetless
riders crash less often or suffer fewer injuries. Maybe they do but when
they hit their head it's often fatal. I would rather crash fifty times with
my helmet on than once without it. In other words, yes i recommend helmets
for all riders. All 100%. They do save lives- it's too bad there's no stat
for that.
sorry for the weak data, wish i had access to something better. thanks for
reading.
-al

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

I would rather crash fifty times with

Quoted message said:

my helmet on than once without it.

After reading your post, sounds like you already have.

Dave

Dear Dreaded,

I applaud your efforts, and I am a helmet advocate as well. Just seems like
there's a bunch of folks out there who want to argue no matter how much
evidence there is that helmets help more than they hurt/hinder/cause more
crashes. Apparently just because statistics can be looked at from all
different angles to support their claims that why bother, your odds of being
one of "the few" where a helment can really help are so slim, they feel
helmets are a waste.

After reading (and debating it) here, I've finally decided to stop trying to
argue it, and just let Darwin take over, and we won't have to worry about
them for too long (then again, more are being made every day)...

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

dreaded said:

Hello out there, I would like to offer my opinion about wearing a

helmet. I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

see a lot of posts that suggest it doesn't help to wear a helmet and

some

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

even suggest it can be more hazardous to wear one (?). I think it's

foolish

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to go without a helmet as it is foolish to go without various types of
insurance. I work in the surgery dept at a major trauma center and

suggest

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that my experience is not just anecdotal. We treat trauma cases every

day

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and head injuries are the worst sort. A bruise to the head can easily

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fatal. After the intitial bruise the pressure inside the skull builds

up

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

over time eventually cutting off oxygen for the rest of the brain. If

we

Quoted message said:

get

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to you soon enough you may survive with only limited damage but you

may

Quoted message said:

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to learn to walk or speak again. Almost all of the serious and/or

fatal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

closed head injuries from bike accidents we see are from the lack of a
helmet. I'm sure there will be some strongly voiced opposition to this
opinion from those who feel that helmets don't help (and smoking is

good

Quoted message said:

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you!). Well, fire away if you please. There is nothing more convincing

than

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a hopeless case of a 12 year old brain dead girl who got knocked off

her

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bike by a careless parent. Or a 15 year old skateboarder who smacked

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

pavement once too many times who's parents now have to decide whether

or

Quoted message said:

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to let them go and donate the organs.
-al

So, what percentage of the serious brain injuries at your trauma center
happen on bikes? I'm quite curious, and hope you'll respond.

You know that for the USA as a whole, it's about 1%. Right?

Do you therefore recommend helmets for the other 99% too? If so, you
must drop in on lots of Usenet groups!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

I haven't taken down any data but I can specifically remember five deaths

in

Quoted message said:

the last six months-maybe about 2 or 3% of all the traumas are from bike
crashes (ie bike v car, bike v tree, bike v pole etc.), of those the worst
prognosis is almost always from the head trauma (maybe as much as 90% of
fatal bike crashes from head injury). So we see a lot of bike crash

victims,

Quoted message said:

but from the ones who hit their head it's always much worse- ask any
neurosurgeon. My original point is that while most people think their

skull

Quoted message said:

is their natural helmet may not understand what happens when the skull

meets

Quoted message said:

something like pavement or a rock or whatever. I would much rather take

the

Quoted message said:

same blow to any other part of my body rather than the head. I see
statistics which can be used to say helmets dont help like: helmetless
riders crash less often or suffer fewer injuries. Maybe they do but when
they hit their head it's often fatal. I would rather crash fifty times

with

Quoted message said:

my helmet on than once without it. In other words, yes i recommend helmets
for all riders. All 100%. They do save lives- it's too bad there's no stat
for that.
sorry for the weak data, wish i had access to something better. thanks for
reading.
-al

dreaded said:

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

Quoted message said:

So, what percentage of the serious brain injuries at your trauma center
happen on bikes? I'm quite curious, and hope you'll respond.

You know that for the USA as a whole, it's about 1%. Right?

Do you therefore recommend helmets for the other 99% too? If so, you
must drop in on lots of Usenet groups!

I haven't taken down any data...

I'm not surprised.

Quoted message said:

... but I can specifically remember five deaths in
the last six months...

Hold on, hold on. There are only about 700 to 800 cycling deaths per
year in the entire United States. If your own trauma room saw five
cycling deaths in the last six months, you are in a strange place
indeed! There are over 1100 trauma centers in the US, and far more
emergency rooms. Your normal share of bike fatalities would be far less
than one.

So, you need to give us details. Otherwise, it certainly looks like
you're making things up, or otherwise misleading us!

Quoted message said:

... -maybe about 2 or 3% of all the traumas are from bike
crashes (ie bike v car, bike v tree, bike v pole etc.)...

Nationwide, it's a bit lower, but carry on.

Quoted message said:

of those the worst
prognosis is almost always from the head trauma....

.... which is generally true of all accident victims, is it not? There's
nothing special there about bicyclists.

Quoted message said:

(maybe as much as 90% of
fatal bike crashes from head injury).

I'm not impressed by statements like "maybe as much as..." It's clear
you're making up numbers as you go along.

The more common statement is that 75% of bicycle fatalities "involve
head injuries." But that itself is a hedge, since a fatality with
massive internal injuries plus a scratch on the forehead could be said
to "involve a head injury."

Quoted message said:

So we see a lot of bike crash victims,
but from the ones who hit their head it's always much worse- ask any
neurosurgeon.

Last time I talked to a neurosurgeon, he was soon saying the same thing
about the overwhelmingly greater number of motorist who were crash victims.

And when I talked to a head injury rehabilitation counselor, the
conversation went the same way. She said only one of her clients (in
her entire career) was a cyclist. Almost all were motorists. And BTW,
we think that one cyclist wore a helmet, since he was injured in a race.

Quoted message said:

My original point is that while most people think their skull
is their natural helmet may not understand what happens when the skull meets
something like pavement or a rock or whatever. I would much rather take the
same blow to any other part of my body rather than the head.

And _my_ original point was that it's the same for everyone. Cyclists
are not overrepresented in serious head injury counts. Roughly half of
serious head injuries happen inside motor vehicles. Roughly 40% happen
in falls around the house. Only about 1% are cyclists.

And it's not just because there's less cycling than motoring. The
per-hour data is hard to find, but what's available shows cycling head
injury fatalities per hour to be roughly equal to motorists, and better
than pedestrians (at least, near traffic.)

I'm sure you write from sincere concern, but I suggest you take an
honest look at the causes of serious head injuries at your trauma
center, or in the US as a whole. If you do, I think you'll find you
dropped in on the wrong Usenet group. You're missing 99% of the head
injury problem in America.

IOW, you need to go bother the folks at rec.autos.driving and
misc.fitness.walking, to start.

(I'm not sure how you reach the literal millions who get their serious
head injuries falling in the homes. I'll leave that to you.)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

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

Quoted message said:

Hello out there, I would like to offer my opinion about wearing a helmet.

I

Quoted message said:

see a lot of posts that suggest it doesn't help to wear a helmet and some
even suggest it can be more hazardous to wear one (?). I think it's

foolish

Quoted message said:

to go without a helmet as it is foolish to go without various types of
insurance. I work in the surgery dept at a major trauma center and suggest
that my experience is not just anecdotal. We treat trauma cases every day
and head injuries are the worst sort. A bruise to the head can easily be
fatal. After the intitial bruise the pressure inside the skull builds up
over time eventually cutting off oxygen for the rest of the brain. If we

get

Quoted message said:

to you soon enough you may survive with only limited damage but you may

have

Quoted message said:

to learn to walk or speak again. Almost all of the serious and/or fatal
closed head injuries from bike accidents we see are from the lack of a
helmet. I'm sure there will be some strongly voiced opposition to this
opinion from those who feel that helmets don't help (and smoking is good

for

Quoted message said:

you!). Well, fire away if you please. There is nothing more convincing

than

Quoted message said:

a hopeless case of a 12 year old brain dead girl who got knocked off her
bike by a careless parent. Or a 15 year old skateboarder who smacked the
pavement once too many times who's parents now have to decide whether or

not

Quoted message said:

to let them go and donate the organs.
-al

Dave,

Thanks for the post, but in this newsgroup, this just provokes a TON of
nonsense. Take Frank for instance. I just hope that, when the time comes
that he's in a position to realize how much a helmet might have helped him,
he's not too brain dead to be able to realize it.

Over a decade of riding an average of 10,000 to 12,000 miles per year, I've
been hit by cars twice and had one other serious crash. In all three cases
my head hit the pavement ... HARD. The last time, according to witnesses,
after being launched 20 or more feet in the air off of a car windshield, I
landed squarely on my head. I sustained a compression fracture of the spine
(among many other serious injuries) which is evidence of a very severe
impact squarely atop my head. I had a very broken helmet, but NO head
trauma.

But you know what? None of my incidents ever made it into anyone's
statistics. Nobody ever asked. Nobody ever recorded it because I didn't
sustain a head trauma. People like Frank and the others here who want to
see statistics think they're being so logical and smart, but they're unable
to grasp the limitations of the data. They want to rationalize stupid
behavior. It's like The Tobacco Institute which wants you to believe that
there's no causal link between cigarette smoking and cancer. If they only
realized how stupid they sound saying that.

Bob C.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:44:42 -0700, "dreaded" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Almost all of the serious and/or fatal
closed head injuries from bike accidents we see are from the lack of a
helmet.

Actually I would say that none of them are caused by that - most of
them will probably be caused by impact with a motor vehcicle. But
it's OK, that's a common mistake :-)

You might also want to look at what happened in Australia and New
Zealand when they introduced compulsion. With near-100% helmet
wearing rates, the head injury rate is essentially unchanged. Or, if
you prefer a US example, the cyclist head injury rate has increased by
40% in the time that helmet use rose from 18% to 50%.

Which suggests that it's not that simple.

The fact that a helmet is only tested to absorb the equivalent of a
simple low speed fall (which of course was always unlikely to be
fatal) may also be significant :-)

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 Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:30:56 -0400, "psycholist" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Thanks for the post, but in this newsgroup, this just provokes a TON of
nonsense. Take Frank for instance. I just hope that, when the time comes
that he's in a position to realize how much a helmet might have helped him,
he's not too brain dead to be able to realize it.

See? Like the man said, a TON of nonsense.

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

Dave said:

Just seems like
there's a bunch of folks out there who want to argue no matter how much
evidence there is that helmets help more than they hurt/hinder/cause more
crashes.

That's only one measure of efficacy, and it's a pretty shabby and
ambivalent justification for bike hats. A more important question is,
how serious a risk are you attempting to abate by using a bike hat?

Anybody who wears a helmet on the bike, but not in the car (a source
of 50 to 100 times more fatal head injuries) is in a fantasy
wonderland of denial. And you'd better strap on your beanie when
climbing a ladder or walking outside on an icy day, otherwise you're
going to look like a pretty uninformed safetynik.

Quoted message said:

After reading (and debating it) here, I've finally decided to stop trying to
argue it, and just let Darwin take over, and we won't have to worry about
them for too long

If I got an extra five minutes every time some foam hat evangelist
invoked Darwin, I'd probably live as long as the more than 100 years
that cycling thrived without anybody wearing helmets. Funny, but just
about as many cyclists get killed per capita these days as back when
none of them wore helmets at all! Yet I've heard that some 40% of
U.S. cyclists wear the ceremonial hat. I wonder if *that's* a good
indication of its efficacy?

Chalo Colina

Ahhh, proving my point for me! Thanks! I never made any justification for
helmets in my post. All I did was say that there are plenty of poeple who
just like to argue the point, no matter what evidence may say. And you
proved it for me! Thanks!

Oh, BTW, killed? When did I say anything about killed? But then you'd be
dragging me into the helmet argument again, where I have no intention of
going.

Ride, be happy with or without a helment, and keep the rubber side down....

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

Quoted message said:

Dave said:

Just seems like
there's a bunch of folks out there who want to argue no matter how much
evidence there is that helmets help more than they hurt/hinder/cause

more

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

crashes.

That's only one measure of efficacy, and it's a pretty shabby and
ambivalent justification for bike hats. A more important question is,
how serious a risk are you attempting to abate by using a bike hat?

Anybody who wears a helmet on the bike, but not in the car (a source
of 50 to 100 times more fatal head injuries) is in a fantasy
wonderland of denial. And you'd better strap on your beanie when
climbing a ladder or walking outside on an icy day, otherwise you're
going to look like a pretty uninformed safetynik.

Quoted message said:

After reading (and debating it) here, I've finally decided to stop

trying to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

argue it, and just let Darwin take over, and we won't have to worry

about

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

them for too long

If I got an extra five minutes every time some foam hat evangelist
invoked Darwin, I'd probably live as long as the more than 100 years
that cycling thrived without anybody wearing helmets. Funny, but just
about as many cyclists get killed per capita these days as back when
none of them wore helmets at all! Yet I've heard that some 40% of
U.S. cyclists wear the ceremonial hat. I wonder if *that's* a good
indication of its efficacy?

Chalo Colina

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

Quoted message said:

Dave said:

Just seems like
there's a bunch of folks out there who want to argue no matter how much
evidence there is that helmets help more than they hurt/hinder/cause

more

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

crashes.

That's only one measure of efficacy, and it's a pretty shabby and
ambivalent justification for bike hats. A more important question is,
how serious a risk are you attempting to abate by using a bike hat?

Anybody who wears a helmet on the bike, but not in the car

Air bags.

Quoted message said:

(a source
of 50 to 100 times more fatal head injuries) is in a fantasy
wonderland of denial. And you'd better strap on your beanie when
climbing a ladder

Hard hat. Wear one all the time around construction sites.

Quoted message said:

or walking outside on an icy day, otherwise you're
going to look like a pretty uninformed safetynik.

Quoted message said:

After reading (and debating it) here, I've finally decided to stop

trying to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

argue it, and just let Darwin take over, and we won't have to worry

about

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

them for too long

If I got an extra five minutes every time some foam hat evangelist
invoked Darwin, I'd probably live as long as the more than 100 years
that cycling thrived without anybody wearing helmets. Funny, but just
about as many cyclists get killed per capita these days as back when
none of them wore helmets at all! Yet I've heard that some 40% of
U.S. cyclists wear the ceremonial hat. I wonder if *that's* a good
indication of its efficacy?

Chalo Colina

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

Quoted message said:

dreaded wrote:

.... snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... but I can specifically remember five deaths in
the last six months...

Hold on, hold on. There are only about 700 to 800 cycling deaths per
year in the entire United States. If your own trauma room saw five
cycling deaths in the last six months, you are in a strange place
indeed!

It certainly is. Based on his score, he is seeing 1.4% of all US
cycling deaths. The actual rate would be much higher since not all
fatally injured victims get to a trauma center. Even so, the rate is
still about 15 times the trauma center average even if all victims
were to make it to trauma centers.

No wonder there are helmet skeptics on this group. There have been
fraudulent claims posted here before.

What exactly does "dreaded" do? Push gurneys around the ER?

..... snip

Joe S. said:

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

Quoted message said:

Dave said:

Just seems like
there's a bunch of folks out there who want to argue no matter how much
evidence there is that helmets help more than they hurt/hinder/cause

more

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

crashes.

That's only one measure of efficacy, and it's a pretty shabby and
ambivalent justification for bike hats. A more important question is,
how serious a risk are you attempting to abate by using a bike hat?

Anybody who wears a helmet on the bike, but not in the car

Air bags.

Quoted message said:

(a source
of 50 to 100 times more fatal head injuries) is in a fantasy
wonderland of denial.

You may pretend that air bags prevent all head injuries in cars, but
you'd be far wrong. Airbags are only a few percent more effective at
preventing fatalities than shoulder belts. And airbags or no, it's
still true that roughly half of America's head injury fatalities happen
inside cars.

However, let me ask: When you get into a non-airbag car, what do you
wear on your head?

I have a good friend who has restored a classic sports car from the
1960s. If you were offered a ride in it, would you _really_ say "Not
until I get my helmet!" ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And you'd better strap on your beanie when
climbing a ladder

Hard hat. Wear one all the time around construction sites.

Do you _really_ wear one every time you use a stepladder at home?

I don't doubt it's possible. As shown by our helmet threads, some
people are _very_ concerned about safety! But I'm curious how far down
that road you've gone.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

psycholist said:

Dave,

Thanks for the post, but in this newsgroup, this just provokes a TON of
nonsense. Take Frank for instance. I just hope that, when the time comes
that he's in a position to realize how much a helmet might have helped him,
he's not too brain dead to be able to realize it.

Well, in over 30 years of adult riding, plus something like 15 years of
riding as a kid, I've never come close to needing a helmet, so I remain
unworried.

Quoted message said:

Over a decade of riding an average of 10,000 to 12,000 miles per year, I've
been hit by cars twice and had one other serious crash. In all three cases
my head hit the pavement ... HARD. The last time, according to witnesses,
after being launched 20 or more feet in the air off of a car windshield, I
landed squarely on my head. I sustained a compression fracture of the spine
(among many other serious injuries) which is evidence of a very severe
impact squarely atop my head. I had a very broken helmet, but NO head
trauma.

And the story I always tell about that sort of thing:

A few years ago, my family and some of our friends had just left a
restaurant in a big city near here, and were walking back to our cars.
A bus was parked on the street up ahead of us, and a car was driving by
the bus.

Just as the car passed the front of the bus, a college-aged kid zoomed
out from in front of the bus without stopping. The car impacted him
with a dreadful bang. From our vantage point behind the car, we saw his
body thrown up into the air above the car. We learned later that he,
too, landed on his head on the pavement.

I didn't pause for a second. I immediately ran back to the restaurant
to report a traffic fatality. They called 911, and I ran back out to
view the dreaded carnage. I'd seen a person killed once before, and it
was ugly.

But this time, there was no carnage. The car's grille was destroyed,
its windshield was completely smashed by the kid's head, it's hood badly
dented, the windshield wiper smashed, etc. but the college kid was
alive. He was sitting on a low wall next to the sidewalk. An off-duty
EMT was holding his head and telling him not to move. But he kept
saying he was fine.

And he was. His only injury was a slight scratch or cut above the right
ear. They strapped him to a back board and ambulanced him to the ER,
but he had absolutely no problems beyond that scratch. As witnesses, we
phoned the cops the next day, and they said he was back in class, as usual.

It could be a wonderful "Helmet saved his life" story - except he wore
no helmet. And oddly, nobody even mentioned his lack of a helmet,
despite all the fatal head injuries suffered by guys like him.

No, not bicyclists. He wasn't on a bike. He was a pedestrian. He'd
jogged across that street because he was in a hurry.

Pedestrians suffer far more serious or fatal head injuries than cyclists
do. Still, almost nobody seriously proposes helmets for them.

If they did, though, and if this kid had worn one, everyone would have
been _positive_ the helmet saved his life.

They'd have been wrong, of course, but they'd have been just as positive
as you.

Quoted message said:

But you know what? None of my incidents ever made it into anyone's
statistics.

This one probably didn't either.

But if enough helmet fans had their lives saved (or serious head
injuries prevented) by helmets, it _would_ show up in the statistics.
The drop in injuries per rider would be apparent.

Too bad that's never been the case.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html

Quoted message said:

People like Frank and the others here who want to
see statistics think they're being so logical and smart, but they're unable
to grasp the limitations of the data. They want to rationalize stupid
behavior.

Don't talk to me about rationalization, if you insist on ignoring the
best information on this subject.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:33:24 -0400, "Joe S." <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Quoted message said:

Anybody who wears a helmet on the bike, but not in the car

Air bags.

Yet strangely there is a rise in the rate of front passenger
fatalities in cars driven by young men, associated with the arrival on
the second-hand market of cars fitted with driver's airbags.

Yet another safety feature consumed as a performance benefit to the
detriment of everybody other than the driver.

Risk compensation is awkward that way.

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

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

Quoted message said:

Hold on, hold on. There are only about 700 to 800 cycling deaths per
year in the entire United States. If your own trauma room saw five
cycling deaths in the last six months, you are in a strange place
indeed! There are over 1100 trauma centers in the US, and far more
emergency rooms. Your normal share of bike fatalities would be far less
than one.

But certain Trauma Centers would likely see more Cycle accidents than others
because of locations. For example, St. Joseph's Hospital in Chicago is
right on the Lake Front in Chicago smack dab in the middle of Lincoln Park.
It is also where a great deal of riding occurs in Chicago (and because of
the Lake Front Path lots more accidents show up as well). (Its where I
went when I was whacked by a Domino's Pizza delivery driver. Twisted bike,
Broken hand, leg contusions, smashed helmet, no head injury... but that's
just my experience). And all of the Lake Front Bike Path Bicylcing deaths
in the past few years have all been reported at St. Joesphs (and they were
not wearing helmets, but that doesn't tell us much since most of the riders
on the Lake Front paths don't wear helmets) I would not be suprised at all
if St. Joesphs didn't have a much higher number of Bike Accident Victims
then one of the Hospitals out west of the city not near any major Bicylcing
Venues. I have no idea how many non-Lake Front Bicycling Fatalities show up
at St. Joesphs, but if they saw 5 or more a year it would not be a complete
suprise to me.

Quoted message said:

And when I talked to a head injury rehabilitation counselor, the
conversation went the same way. She said only one of her clients (in
her entire career) was a cyclist. Almost all were motorists. And BTW,
we think that one cyclist wore a helmet, since he was injured in a race.

It depends on the nature of the rehabilitation. My mother was involved in
rehabilitation for many years and she had quite a few patients that were
recovering from serious Bicycling injuries. And most of them had not been
wearing helmets. But again, its a small sample size and therefore not
relevant. (But it certainly influenced me...)

Quoted message said:

And it's not just because there's less cycling than motoring. The
per-hour data is hard to find, but what's available shows cycling head
injury fatalities per hour to be roughly equal to motorists, and better
than pedestrians (at least, near traffic.)

I would be interested in seeng a source for this claim.

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

Quoted message said:

Well, in over 30 years of adult riding, plus something like 15 years of
riding as a kid, I've never come close to needing a helmet, so I remain
unworried.

I have broken 4 helmets in accidents. And both of our experiences
represent too small a sample size to be relevant. What I would hope that
we can reasonably agree upon is that wearing a helmet doesn't increase the
chances of a crash once one has gotten used to wearing a helmet. And that
wearing a helmet does not increase the chance of serious injury. If we
can't agree on these premises, than further discussion is not relevant.

John Smith said:

What I would hope
that we can reasonably agree upon is that wearing a helmet doesn't
increase the chances of a crash once one has gotten used to wearing a
helmet.

But there are some here that will tell you that donning helmet gives you a
sense of invulnerability and you therefore take more risks and therefore
have more accidents

Quoted message said:

And that wearing a helmet does not increase the chance of
serious injury.

Also there are those who point to the risk of torsional injury being greater
when wearing a helmet.

Quoted message said:

If we can't agree on these premises,

You won't with some here

Quoted message said:

than further
discussion is not relevant.

correct!

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:04:47 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

there are some here that will tell you that donning helmet gives you a
sense of invulnerability and you therefore take more risks and therefore
have more accidents

That number now includes Barry Pless, confirmed helmet zealot and
editor of Injury Prevention. He set out to prove the opposite and was
apparently rather taken aback by what he found.

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