helmets

John Smith said:

"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.

Sure, that's possible. But if that's the case, the OP should make it
clear that his Center is not typical. Otherwise, it counts as another
false "Bicycling is Very Dangerous" story.

Quoted message said:

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.

I'm always a bit suspicious of phrases like "Quite a few." I much
prefer things like percentages. Even approximate percentages are better
than such vagueness.

National statistics say there are "quite a few" head injury fatalities
from bicycles - but that "quite a few" is less than one percent of
America's total head injury fatalities. You've got to look at
percentages, or at comparative numbers.

Quoted message said:

And most of them had not been
wearing helmets.

Of course! Most cyclists still don't wear them. Neither do most
motorists, the biggest "serious head injury" group. Nor most
pedestrians, and so on.

Quoted message said:

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.

Robinson, D.L., "Head Injuries and Bicycle Helmet Laws," Accident
Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 463-475, 1996.

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

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. 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.

Well, you're free to stop discussing and learning at any point.

However, "getting used to wearing" isn't what's important to a person's
behavior. Perceived protection is, especially if it exceeds actual
protection. If a person truly believes the (incredible) claim that
helmets prevent 85% of head injuries, it's hard to believe they won't
take some risks they'd otherwise avoid. Since the most robust data
shows helmets actually provide very little protection, it's quite
plausible that they'll be worse off than before.

One (statistically insignificant) pair of examples:

1) You seem to have a great faith in your helmet. You have crashed
enough to break 4 helmets.

2) I have essentially no faith in helmets. I have had only one
walking-speed on-road fall in over 30 years adult cycling. Of course, I
wasn't wearing a helmet, and I had no need of one.

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

Just zis Guy said:

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.

No doubt. Perhaps the reason that head injury rate has climbed
slightly in the US while helmet use has skyrocketed is due to people
trusting foam hats instead of their good judgment?

Another plausible explanation is that the foam hats don't work. I say
"whatever".

Chalo Colina

Dave said:

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!

Ah, so you were trolling. That's an annoying breach of Usenet
etiquette, but unavoidably tempting to some, I suppose. I suppose I
could gratuitously invoke Darwin somehow, but that would be as silly
as your own misuse of him.

Keep the foamy side up, buckaroo,

Chalo Colina

John Smith said:

I have broken 4 helmets in accidents.

So you assume that when your _styrofoam hat_ breaks, that you have
been spared injury? Whoa. What would a hat have to be made of for
you to consider it fragile enough to break when you wouldn't have been
hurt otherwise? Perhaps whipped cream?

I have a bulletproof vest made out of paper doilies for you to buy.
It's lighter and more breathable than the Kevlar kind, and 10% cheaper
too! When the doilies tear and fall off, that's how you know you've
been shot and that the vest has done its job protecting you.

Chalo Colina

Just zis Guy said:

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.

his conclusion does not exaclty reverse his position but introduces another
layer of complexity;

"The results indicate that risk compensation may modify the effectiveness of
PE for children engaged in sports and leisure activities. Conversely, the
findings also suggest that those wearing PE may be a cautious subgroup"

http://www.pulsus.com/Paeds/09_05/mok_ed.htm

(btw sample size in the study was 63 6-16 with non severe injury)

pk

"Chalo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote:
|
| > 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.
|
| No doubt. Perhaps the reason that head injury rate has climbed
| slightly in the US while helmet use has skyrocketed is due to people
| trusting foam hats instead of their good judgment?
|
| Another plausible explanation is that the foam hats don't work. I say
| "whatever".
|
| Chalo Colina

John Lott wrote at some length about 'risk compensation' in More Guns, Less
Crime. I submit that dumbmasses aren't smart enough to think about or
understand hell-mutts, CCW or risk compensation. The topic requires some
understanding of a 'risk calculus', this in a population that can't count
change.

Trolling? I think not. I was telling the OP that I applauded his efforts
in trying to get his message across, but is was probably falling on deaf
ears.

Methinks you should quit whilst behind...

Dave

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

Quoted message said:

Dave said:

Ahhh, proving my point for me! Thanks! I never made any justification

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

helmets in my post. All I did was say that there are plenty of poeple

who

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just like to argue the point, no matter what evidence may say. And you
proved it for me! Thanks!

Ah, so you were trolling. That's an annoying breach of Usenet
etiquette, but unavoidably tempting to some, I suppose. I suppose I
could gratuitously invoke Darwin somehow, but that would be as silly
as your own misuse of him.

Keep the foamy side up, buckaroo,

Chalo Colina

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

Base on most of the response, you are clearly using the wrong approach.
Something in the spirit of Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" might be
the thing. Something like

URGENT NEED FOR ORGAN DONATIONS!!!

Non-helmet wearers, let us help you get your organ donation paper work,
living will etc. in order. There is a vast need and many deserving
recipients out there, and it would be a shameful waste to not be able to
give them a well conditioned set of cyclist lungs and heart. They would
be very grateful, and oh yes, please carry your donor card always.

Of course it may not be politic to include an opinion that an early
symptom of an important qualification for organ donation, namely brain
death, is implict in the decision not to wear...

Mike

Chalo said:

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

Count head injuries per mile travelled per person and those numbers
go in the other direction--by a lot. I've easily travelled 20-30
times as many miles in motor vehicles as on a bike. Total times
hitting my head in motor vehicles: 0. Total times on the bike: 2.

This is just more [censored] statistics from the anti-helmet freaks.

--Bill Davidson

dreaded said:

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

in

Quoted message said:

the last six months

If this is true, then your hospital sees about 2.5% of all bicycle related
fatalities in the US (assuming you are in the US), or about one out of every
forty bicycle fatalities. Care to tell us which hospital, in which city?
That way, I can insist I don't be taken there, since so many patients die of
head trauma there.

Do you recommend that pedestrians wear helmets? About 5 times as many
pedestrians suffer fatal head injuries than cyclists.

Austin

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

Quoted message said:

1) You seem to have a great faith in your helmet. You have crashed
enough to break 4 helmets.

Yes. Even though I am a very cautious rider. And the accidents were not
avoidable.

Accident one. Bicylcling along a paved river path at a relatively slow
pace. Small kid darted out from behind trees. Had choice of kid or tree.
Chose tree.

Accident two. Domino's Pizza driver, who had been sitting in car for a few
minutes, opens door in front of bicycle.

Accident three. I stop at stop sign and am hit from behind by car that did
not stop.

Accident four. Bicycling on Bike Path, Bicyclist going the other way turns
around to talk to friend and suddenly veers into me in head on crash. I
break helmet and walk away.... they are not wearing helmet and go to ER.

Yes,. you are right. Maybe I would have just "walked away" from those
accidents anyway. But the simple fact is that there are more studies which
say that helemts help than studies that say that they are neutral and a lot
more studies which stay that helmets are, at worst neutral, than studies
that say that they hurt. But you have your mind made up, and no doubt it
would be as ineffective to argue this point with you as to argue with a
smoker that Cigarettes are dangerous, with a non-seat belt wearer that seat
belts save lives, and with people that do not put their children in child
safety seats that they are putting their kids at risk.

AustinMN said:

Do you recommend that pedestrians wear helmets? About 5 times as many
pedestrians suffer fatal head injuries than cyclists.

And how many pedesrtian hours are there compared to cyclist hours?

There are many valid anti compulsion arguments - that isn't one of them and
use of such infact weakens the case.

pk

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

Quoted message said:

dreaded said:

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

deaths

Quoted message said:

in

Quoted message said:

the last six months

If this is true, then your hospital sees about 2.5% of all bicycle related
fatalities in the US (assuming you are in the US), or about one out of

every

Quoted message said:

forty bicycle fatalities. Care to tell us which hospital, in which city?
That way, I can insist I don't be taken there, since so many patients die

of

Quoted message said:

head trauma there.

Again the relevant question is not the number, but the rate. For example,
George Washington University Hospital in Washington DC and the University of
Chicago Hospital in Chicago have signifcantly more patients die of gun shot
wounds than, for example, Suburban Hospital in Rockville, Maryland. That
being said, if I am shot, I hope it is near one of the former. They also
handle a significantly higher volume of gun shot wounds and are far more
skilled at addressing the problem. (In fact, Ron Reagan's surrival of the
shooting is attributed in part to the fact that GW had so much experience in
the area... notwithstanding the number of deaths.) Sloane-Kettering no
doubt has more cancer deaths than many small rural hospitals as well.
But if you are going to go on raw numbers (as most Anti-Helmetites do) you
will make wrong decisions.

Quoted message said:

Do you recommend that pedestrians wear helmets? About 5 times as many
pedestrians suffer fatal head injuries than cyclists.

Which would be relevant if pedestrians were only five times as common as
bicyclists. But Pedestrians are a great deal more common than bicyclists
and the number (as opposed to the rate) is going to be much higher. All
but the most strident and ardent bicyclists spend more time as pedestrians
than as bicyclists. And most people spend much more time as peds.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have broken 4 helmets in accidents.

So you assume that when your _styrofoam hat_ breaks, that you have
been spared injury?

Yes. Its a pretty basic concept. A crushable foam absorbs impact and
limits the impact to the thing you are protecting. It is used in
automobiles, particularly professional race cars, who come apart and
otherwise deform in order to protect the occupant. Even most high school
students can learn to understand this through the "egg drop" competitions.
(In which you design a device which enables you to drop and egg from the top
of a five story building and it does not break. The winners often consist
of things made of foam (or cardboard) which absorb the impact and save the
egg.

Quoted message said:

Whoa. What would a hat have to be made of for
you to consider it fragile enough to break when you wouldn't have been
hurt otherwise? Perhaps whipped cream?

Its not the question as to whether or not the hat is fragile, it is whether
it absorbs impacts. Its a basic concept. Sorry you decided to skip Jr.
High School Science.

Quoted message said:

I have a bulletproof vest made out of paper doilies for you to buy.
It's lighter and more breathable than the Kevlar kind, and 10% cheaper
too! When the doilies tear and fall off, that's how you know you've
been shot and that the vest has done its job protecting you.

The difference is that foam helmets have been shown to work, and a paper
bulletproof vest has not been shown to work. (Although I suspect that most
helmet advocates would not understand the difference.)

John Smith said:

Yes. Even though I am a very cautious rider. And the accidents were not
avoidable.

Nonsense. Three of these accidents were avoidable.

Quoted message said:

Accident one. Bicylcling along a paved river path at a relatively slow
pace. Small kid darted out from behind trees. Had choice of kid or

tree.

Quoted message said:

Chose tree.

I woudn't have been in this accident because I avoid the dangers of
multi-use paths. Ride in the street, not where pedestrians and children
roam. It is safer for you and them. If you insist on using MUP's, ride at
10 MPH or less.

Quoted message said:

Accident two. Domino's Pizza driver, who had been sitting in car for a

few

Quoted message said:

minutes, opens door in front of bicycle.

I woudn't have been in this accident because I don't ride in the "door
zone". Exception: If the door could have opened such that a car would have
ripped it of, then I might have had to swerve slightly to avoid it.

Quoted message said:

Accident three. I stop at stop sign and am hit from behind by car that

did

Quoted message said:

not stop.

This would have got me. One out of four.

Quoted message said:

Accident four. Bicycling on Bike Path, Bicyclist going the other way

turns

Quoted message said:

around to talk to friend and suddenly veers into me in head on crash. I
break helmet and walk away.... they are not wearing helmet and go to ER.

Again, I wouldn't have been there at all. Which of you was speeding? Most
MUP's have a speed limit of 10 MPH (or less). IMNSHO, even that that is too
fast for many MUP's. or are you claiming he required ER treatment for a 10
MPH crash?

Quoted message said:

Yes,. you are right. Maybe I would have just "walked away" from those
accidents anyway. But the simple fact is that there are more studies

which

Quoted message said:

say that helemts help than studies that say that they are neutral and a

lot

Quoted message said:

more studies which stay that helmets are, at worst neutral, than studies
that say that they hurt. But you have your mind made up, and no doubt it
would be as ineffective to argue this point with you as to argue with a
smoker that Cigarettes are dangerous, with a non-seat belt wearer that

seat

Quoted message said:

belts save lives, and with people that do not put their children in child
safety seats that they are putting their kids at risk.

I was once an avid pro-helmet advocate. I could quote the numbers. I knew,
as you, that those who didn't wear a helmet were fools. But eventually, the
number of people who opposed me made me start looking deeper. One of the
first thins I discovered was that the most-often quoted study (the one that
concluded helmets could reduce head injuries by 85%) had no data to back up
their claim. They might have been able to show a 63% reduction, but that
was not what they put in their conclusion. And in an interesting twist,
they included pedestrian data...that had the same 63% reduction. In other
words, bicycle helmets had no impact at all. I also discovered that the
study's methods had been so sharply criticized that those who conducted it
repeated it, addressing many of the studies flaws. And the conclusion they
came to the second time was that at least as far as fatal head injuries, any
improvement was below the study's margin of error. So the most often quoted
study has been discredited by it's own authors. But people still quote it
and believe it.

Now who are the idiots?

Austin

John Smith said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have broken 4 helmets in accidents.

So you assume that when your _styrofoam hat_ breaks, that you have
been spared injury?

Yes. Its a pretty basic concept. A crushable foam absorbs impact and
limits the impact to the thing you are protecting. It is used in
automobiles, particularly professional race cars, who come apart and
otherwise deform in order to protect the occupant. Even most high school
students can learn to understand this through the "egg drop" competitions.
(In which you design a device which enables you to drop and egg from the

top

Quoted message said:

of a five story building and it does not break. The winners often

consist

Quoted message said:

of things made of foam (or cardboard) which absorb the impact and save the
egg.

Yes, this is the concept. But there is a problem. The standard for helmets
is based on a DECAPITATED head, not one attached to a 150 lb body. There is
way to much momentum for a helmet designed for a head (8 lbs?) to help a
head with an extra 150 lbs behind it (almost 20 times it's design capacity).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whoa. What would a hat have to be made of for
you to consider it fragile enough to break when you wouldn't have been
hurt otherwise? Perhaps whipped cream?

Its not the question as to whether or not the hat is fragile, it is

whether

Quoted message said:

it absorbs impacts. Its a basic concept. Sorry you decided to skip Jr.
High School Science.

The argument isn't whether the helmet absorbs impact. It's about whether it
is capable of absorbing enough impact to make any difference. Sorry you
missed enough science to know the diference between 8 lbs and 158 lbs.

Quoted message said:

The difference is that foam helmets have been shown to work, and a paper
bulletproof vest has not been shown to work.

No, they have not. There have been several large scale studies showing they
don't. The largest study to ever conclude that they do work has been
discredited by it's original authors (by repeating it). Helmets really
don't work. But the concept is aparently lost on most helmet advocates.

Austin (former helmet advocate who decided to believe the truth once faced
with it)

Quoted message said:

dreaded said:

I haven't taken down any data but I can specifically remember five deaths
in the last six months

AustinMN said:

If this is true, then your hospital sees about 2.5% of all bicycle related
fatalities in the US (assuming you are in the US),

What do you base this on? Assuming they average 5 per 6 months
(not a safe assumption but we'll go with it) that would imply
10 in a year. That's about 1.5% of the total fatalities in 2002
which was the lowest bicycle fatality count in the U.S. in a few
decades (I can't find stats for 2003). 1.5% of the total would
not be out of line for a major city like New York, Chicago or
Los Angeles.

The total bicycle fatality counts have been slowly decreasing for
the last few decades with 2000 being the first year with less than
700 in decades. We haven't been over 900 since 1988 (901) or over
800 since 1997 (811). Helmet usage increased dramatically during
the 1990's but I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.

--Bill Davidson

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

Quoted message said:

Nonsense. Three of these accidents were avoidable.

No, they were not avoidable.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Accident one. Bicylcling along a paved river path at a relatively slow
pace. Small kid darted out from behind trees. Had choice of kid or

tree.

Quoted message said:

Chose tree.

I woudn't have been in this accident because I avoid the dangers of
multi-use paths. Ride in the street, not where pedestrians and children
roam. It is safer for you and them. If you insist on using MUP's, ride

at

Quoted message said:

10 MPH or less.

I was going about 10. More importantly, it was a place where the street was
not an option (not without a 2 mile detour. And, of course, just because
YOU wouldn't have been in the accident because you would not have ridden in
a place which is acceptable for bicycles (as opposed to a sidewalk) does not
mean that the accident was avoidable... (Using this logic ALL accidents are
avoidable because someone somewhere will refuse to ride in that particular
area... if it is an "improper area to ride", then avoidance has to be
determined on another basis.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Accident two. Domino's Pizza driver, who had been sitting in car for a

few

Quoted message said:

minutes, opens door in front of bicycle.

I woudn't have been in this accident because I don't ride in the "door
zone". Exception: If the door could have opened such that a car would

have

Quoted message said:

ripped it of, then I might have had to swerve slightly to avoid it.

It was fully opened, and I was gotten by the very tip of the door on the far
edge of the handle bar. It was opened suddenly and the bicycle has to be in
the door zone because of the nature of the street and a further swerve was
not possible becuase of the cars. Again, only "avoidable" by chosing not to
ride in an "acceptable" area for bicycles.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Accident three. I stop at stop sign and am hit from behind by car that

did

Quoted message said:

not stop.

This would have got me. One out of four.

Quoted message said:

Accident four. Bicycling on Bike Path, Bicyclist going the other way

turns

Quoted message said:

around to talk to friend and suddenly veers into me in head on crash.

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

break helmet and walk away.... they are not wearing helmet and go to ER.

Again, I wouldn't have been there at all. Which of you was speeding? Him,

not me. By the time he hit me I was essentially at a full stop. And it
was not a MUP, it was a bike path, marked specifically for bicycles which
runs paralell to a Multi-use path for non-bicyclists.

Quoted message said:

MUP's have a speed limit of 10 MPH (or less). IMNSHO, even that that is

too

Quoted message said:

fast for many MUP's. or are you claiming he required ER treatment for a

10

Quoted message said:

MPH crash?

He required ER treatment. I have no idea as to his speed. And, of course,
I can't control the actions of the other rider.

Quoted message said:

I was once an avid pro-helmet advocate. I could quote the numbers. I

knew,

Quoted message said:

as you, that those who didn't wear a helmet were fools.

And then, I would guess, you suffered a head injury which affected your
powers of thinkings.

Quoted message said:

But eventually, the
number of people who opposed me made me start looking deeper. One of the
first thins I discovered was that the most-often quoted study (the one

that

Quoted message said:

concluded helmets could reduce head injuries by 85%) had no data to back

up

Quoted message said:

their claim. They might have been able to show a 63% reduction, but that
was not what they put in their conclusion. And in an interesting twist,
they included pedestrian data...that had the same 63% reduction. In other
words, bicycle helmets had no impact at all. I also discovered that the
study's methods had been so sharply criticized that those who conducted it
repeated it, addressing many of the studies flaws. And the conclusion

they

Quoted message said:

came to the second time was that at least as far as fatal head injuries,

any

Quoted message said:

improvement was below the study's margin of error. So the most often

quoted

Quoted message said:

study has been discredited by it's own authors. But people still quote it
and believe it.

A common study was "discredited". That's one study. Lots of other studies
make a clear case for helmets. Do you have any studies which show the
opposite? All I see are non-sensical claims like "Pedestrians suffer 5
times as many head injuries as bicyclists".

Quoted message said:

Now who are the idiots?

Since you asked. You.

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

Quoted message said:

Yes, this is the concept. But there is a problem. The standard for

helmets

Quoted message said:

is based on a DECAPITATED head, not one attached to a 150 lb body. There

is

Quoted message said:

way to much momentum for a helmet designed for a head (8 lbs?) to help a
head with an extra 150 lbs behind it (almost 20 times it's design

capacity).

What this means is that the Helmet may not protect to the degree that the
standard claims. It does not mean that it provides no protection.

Quoted message said:

The argument isn't whether the helmet absorbs impact. It's about whether

it

Quoted message said:

is capable of absorbing enough impact to make any difference. Sorry you
missed enough science to know the diference between 8 lbs and 158 lbs.

The problem with your argument is that it is based on the faulty premise
that all accidents are either so slight that the helmet's protection is
irrelevant or so severe that any protection is overwhelmed by the accident.
The thing is that many blows and injuries fall in that middle range... where
the accident is serious enough to need protection but not so serious as to
negate the protection. The same argument can apply for just about every
safety device. Seat Belts and Air Bags provide protection, but are
unneeded at speeds below X and little or no help at speeds above Y. The
helmet absorbs impacts. That is a demonstrable and irrefutable fact.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The difference is that foam helmets have been shown to work, and a paper
bulletproof vest has not been shown to work.

No, they have not. There have been several large scale studies showing

they

Quoted message said:

don't. The largest study to ever conclude that they do work has been
discredited by it's original authors (by repeating it). Helmets really
don't work. But the concept is aparently lost on most helmet advocates.

Name them.