helmets

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:42:02 GMT, "john smith" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How do you account for the fact that it took four attempts to prove
any cost benefit for New Zealand's helmet law, and even that was found
only for children under 12 and on the basis of pretending they all
would have worn helmets anyway and ignoring both pre-existing trends
and the fact that they grow?

Quoted message said:

Actually you should READ that study instead of just looking at conclusions.

So should you. You should, for example, note that the supposed
benefit evaporates if the voluntary wearing rate for the single group
for which benefit was "shown" would be under 2/3, a figure never
approached in any jurisdiction without compulsion.

Quoted message said:

Initially, it was predicated on New Zealand's low health care costs, not the
high US health care costs.

Yes, US health costs are disproportionately high. USA <> entire
world, though. Generally, the NZ costs are pretty representative.

Quoted message said:

Secondly, it also says that it understates
various items including the "value" of a life.

And the cost of lost cycling - well, it doesn't say it underestimates
that, it just does it and hops you won't notice :-)

Quoted message said:

And, of course, it
acknowledges that Helmets do prevent and reduce injury.

Based entirely on Scuffhams 2000 reworking of his earlier data (which
showed no benefit); the supposed benefit only appears when you
carefully pick the years concerned and then ignore pre-existing
trends.

Quoted message said:

It simply says
that in a low health care cost society, the cost-benefit (and without
assigning a specific value to the lost or damaged life) the cost of treating
the head injuries is less than the cost of preventing the injuries.

Actually it says a good deal more than that, if you read between the
lines. It says that even if you ignore the health benefits of
cycling, and assume that most people would buy a helmet anyway, you
can only just prove a tiny cost-benefit for the youngest children.
Damning with faint praise :-)

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, 17 Jul 2004 04:09:10 GMT, Mike McGuire
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Obviously attitudes in this matter are completely hardened and are quite
beyond humor.

Possibly. Most helmet threads on uk.rec.cycling seem to start with
"if you don't wear a helmet you've got nothign to protect" and end
with the conclusion that it's not that simple. The consensus being
that helemts do not prevent an appreciable proportion of serious or
fatal 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

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

Quoted message said:

... the arguments of the Anti-Helmet Nazis...

:-) That's funny!

I just can't recall anyone saying "ACHTUNG! FROM NOW ON, WEARING
HELMETS IS FORBIDDEN!!"

Oddly enough, I _do_ recall things like "It shall be illegal for any
person to operate a pedalcycle unless that person wears a helmet..."

IOW, you're Godwination is not only wrong in the usual way, it's
completely backwards.

- Frank Krygowski

"Chris B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:42:02 GMT, "AustinMN" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

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

they

Quoted message said:

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.

No need to be glum; threads about the North American obsession can be
a great source of amusement. I love seeing the same facile arguments
and puerile attempts at insult being put forth by Johnny-come-latelies
who convincingly seem to believe that they are being both original and
clever. Note that the True Believers will usually identify themselves
quickly by going straight for the invective early on in their first
post to the thread (88% of them, in fact).

In fact, it might not be a bad idea for me to put on a helmet before I
read their offerings in case I fall out of my chair laughing!

Was my post "invective?". Hey, I'm just speaking from experience in helping
treat serious head traumas. Is this an insulting argument? I think it's
worthy of discussion. There are some good posts here on both sides (and some
insulting ones-of course), what is wrong with that? The last thing I want to
do is suggest people shouldn't ride. Helmet or not we should all get out of
stinking cars!

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

Quoted message said:

The last thing I want to
do is suggest people shouldn't ride. Helmet or not we should all get out of
stinking cars!

This is a good point, and one that should be made more often.

Too many helmet fans phrase are too quick to make it sound like you're
better off not riding, than riding without a helmet. The entire
helmet promotion business runs on tales of dire consequences, and
frequently claims a person is stupid for riding - unless they wear a
special hat! That makes many, many millions of the world's past &
present cyclists "stupid."

Of course, the ultimate example is a Mandatory Helmet Law, which makes
it official: "If you don't wear a helmet, you may NOT ride!"

It's hard to see how a person can be in favor of bicycling, yet
believe such nonsense!

- Frank Krygowski

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

Quoted message said:

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

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.

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,

5 in 6 months = 10 in a year.
Yet there are only about 700 bicycle fatalities in a year in the U.S., and
you are seeing over 1% of them.

This seems like a lot, unless you are in some sort of regional head injury
center.
(Of course, there's a human tendency to think traumatic events happened more
recently than they did; it doesn't seem possible to me that my daughter died
19 years ago -- seems more like 5 or 6.)

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

So, what percentage of the serious brain injuries at your trauma

center

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

happen on bikes? I'm quite curious, and hope you'll respond.

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-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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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,

5 in 6 months = 10 in a year.
Yet there are only about 700 bicycle fatalities in a year in the U.S., and
you are seeing over 1% of them.

This seems like a lot, unless you are in some sort of regional head injury
center.
(Of course, there's a human tendency to think traumatic events happened

more

Quoted message said:

recently than they did; it doesn't seem possible to me that my daughter

died

Quoted message said:

19 years ago -- seems more like 5 or 6.)

Harborview Medical Center in Seattle is the only level one trauma center in
four states (WA, ID, MT, AK). The 1% is a guess and i'm not familiar with
statistics on this isuse but I think 1% is actually less than I would guess.
Traumatic events happen not only every day here but every few minutes. I
know my comments are anecdotal to some extent but with the way studies are
conducted these days you can pretty much find something to prove whatever
you want to. There are lots of large studies which suggest helmets help and
many others suggesting they dont. So all i can go by is personal experience,
which I think is pretty good since I work here.
I am sorry to hear about your daughter.

dreaded said:

you want to. There are lots of large studies which suggest helmets help

There are? The only one I know of was discredited by it's original authors.

Quoted message said:

and
many others suggesting they dont.

Including all of the largest ones.

Austin