advisor wanted

Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great
I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect
you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the
point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not
reported. For your information in our country Health care is so
expensive that most people seldom go to ER. In fact belive it or not
the fellow that broke his leg in two places not only did not go to the
ER but finished the ride another 40 miles on the broken leg (he had no
insurance). It was only days later when he could not walk that a friend
and xray tech snuck him into a clinic after hours and xrayed the leg.
The man who landed on his head was taken in an ambulance, I seriously
doubt if anyone at the hospital took any data. I am 62 years old and
have a wife and 34 year old son, together we have been to the ER 7
times and 2 of those were for the pregnancy and two for appendix.
Where I live if you call an ambulance you get a bill for $462.00 and we
are less than 2 miles from the hospital. In my opinion as a retired
engineer the medical industry has the poorest form of statistical data
of anyone. For example my Mom got a mitral valve replacement aprox. 20
years ago, she was one of the first to get a valve made from the muscle
of a pig. Her doctor took me aside and said, he was sorry they had to
use that valve because they could not get the mechanical model to fit.
He said no way she would live 7 years. She went back to the Dr 18
months later it was fine, 5 years later the Dr wanted her to come back
in for more tests, she refused because it was to far and she had no
transportation, the Dr sent an ambulance to the house and did the
tests. Sounds great huh, but 17 years after the valve replacement she
died, from other causes, I called the Dr and asked if he wanted the
heart to examine, he said no he had written his paper and was no longer
interested. I talk to cancer patients often they say that the Dr's
are only interested in what happens for 5 years after that they don't
seem to care. As for your comments about pedestrian injuries/ deaths
in the UK, I believe you, I have been to London several times you drive
on the wrong side of the road and even have written on the curbs LOOK
RIGHT trying to warn the rest of the world that the crazy Brits are
coming from the wrong side.haha That ought to keep you going for a
week. I am going out and enjoy another perfect day.
Happy Trails Butch

Lest anyone think Peter is a lone voice...

Butch said:

Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great
I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect
you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the
point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not
reported.

Which should mean, if they work, that reported injury rates go down as
more people wear them. Whereas what we find is that the trend for
cyclists is the same as for pedestrians regardless of changes in
cyclists' helmet-wearing rate.

Quoted message said:

For your information in our country Health care is so
expensive that most people seldom go to ER.

Luckily Peter is quoting UK stats, where people go to Casualty (ER)
for any injury they haven't got a plaster to fit. Among other things,
these stats show walking and cycling to be about equally hazardous,
and to vary the same way over time - despite cycle helmet wearing
rates increasing from 0 to about half of cyclists in the last 20 years.

One of the reasons people perceive cycling to be dangerous is the
relentless propaganda saying it is, from those promoting helmets.

Wear a helmet, if you wish, to prevent those small injuries you're not
going to go to the ER for. But forget about it saving your life.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

But it isn't "misguided advice", it is reporting the simple truth
that population data does not show any noticable improvement in
head injury rates with increased helmet wearing. That that *fact*
runs counter to "common sense" doesn't make it wrong.

It is misguided because it concerns only "serious" accidents and I'm
betting you agree that far more less than "serious" accidents happen
than serious. Where are the stats for those, the ones that without a
helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching?

Put -'em up if you gottem, but I'm lookin' forward to your sounds of
silence.

I'll put them up for Pete if I may.

Do you know the definitions of a "serious" injury? In most countries
your "ER visit and stitching" would be counted as serious in the
official definitions.

In the US, in 1991 18% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 568,000
cyclist accidents requiring hospital treatment. 12% were head injuries.
By 2000, 30% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 627,160 cyclist
accidents. 12% were head injuries. So whatever all those extra helmets
were doing they were not reducing head injuries.

In the UK the proportion of female under-16 cyclists wearing helmets is
double that of males. The proportion female under 16 cyclists suffering
head injuries is virtually identical to that of males. So whatever all
those extra helmets are doing for the girls, they are not protecting
them from head injuries.

The country with the lowest head injury rate for cyclists is Holland.
They also have the lowest helmet wearing rate in the developed world at
0.1%. Curiously the USA is the reverse with six times the death rate per
km cycled and a 38% helmet wearing rate.

In Australia where helmets are mandatory and enforced, one state has
repealed the helmet law. That state now has the highest cycling rate
and lowest head injury rate in Australia.

Starting to see a pattern?

Whatever common sense is telling you about the protective effect of
helmets, experience around the world says its wrong.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven said:

In the US, in 1991 18% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 568,000
cyclist accidents requiring hospital treatment. 12% were head injuries.
By 2000, 30% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 627,160 cyclist
accidents. 12% were head injuries. So whatever all those extra helmets
were doing they were not reducing head injuries.

In the UK the proportion of female under-16 cyclists wearing helmets is
double that of males. The proportion female under 16 cyclists suffering
head injuries is virtually identical to that of males. So whatever all
those extra helmets are doing for the girls, they are not protecting
them from head injuries.

The country with the lowest head injury rate for cyclists is Holland.
They also have the lowest helmet wearing rate in the developed world at
0.1%. Curiously the USA is the reverse with six times the death rate per
km cycled and a 38% helmet wearing rate.

In Australia where helmets are mandatory and enforced, one state has
repealed the helmet law. That state now has the highest cycling rate
and lowest head injury rate in Australia.

Very interesting information, and I'd like to read more. Can you post
links to the studies or web sites where you got them?

Rich said:

rBOB said:

It is perfectly
legitimate to ask: Why has society deemed it appropriate / necessary /
mandatory to wear a helmet while cycling but not while walking,
driving, running, descending staircases, etc, etc...)?

Possible answers:
We're moving much slower while walking
We have seatbelts and airbags for driving
We also moving slower runnning then biking
We have banisters to hold onto while descending staircases

The U.S. is a safety consious country when it comes to personal
activities. Right or wrong, helments are the safety item of choice for
any activity involving moving at a speed greater then running (roller
skating, skateboards, skiiing, etc..). It's an easy sell.

Which is curious seeing as cycling helmets are not designed or certified
for speeds higher than running. If your assertion was right then the
manufacturers would surely be designing for and claiming protection for
higher than running speeds but they don't.

In addition to which the risk of head injuries from trips, falls etc
while walking is just the same as the risk of head injuries while
cycling. Since many many more people walk and more often, why are they
not the primary target for helmets?

Cycling is a very safe activity compared to all the other risks people
take in their daily lives but for some reason people want to portray it
as so uniquely dangerous that it requires special protective equipment.
And guess what? The number one reason people give for not cycling is
its dangerous. I wonder where they got that idea from?

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Colin McKenzie said:

Lest anyone think Peter is a lone voice...

Butch said:

Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great
I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect
you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the
point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not
reported.

Which should mean, if they work, that reported injury rates go down as
more people wear them. Whereas what we find is that the trend for
cyclists is the same as for pedestrians regardless of changes in
cyclists' helmet-wearing rate.

Quoted message said:

For your information in our country Health care is so
expensive that most people seldom go to ER.

Luckily Peter is quoting UK stats, where people go to Casualty (ER)
for any injury they haven't got a plaster to fit. Among other things,
these stats show walking and cycling to be about equally hazardous,
and to vary the same way over time - despite cycle helmet wearing
rates increasing from 0 to about half of cyclists in the last 20 years.

One of the reasons people perceive cycling to be dangerous is the
relentless propaganda saying it is, from those promoting helmets.

Wear a helmet, if you wish, to prevent those small injuries you're not
going to go to the ER for. But forget about it saving your life.

It is worth noting that Holland has a high proportion of its
population using bikes, a very low proportion of its cyclists wearing
helmets and a low head injury rate among cyclists.

http://home.comcast.net/~steveheadley1/biketowork.jpg

Butch said:

Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great
I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect
you must be quite young to be so naive.

You didn't upset me, you were just being wrong. I'm 39 btw.

Quoted message said:

You don't seem to get the
point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not
reported.

And therefore that should contribute to a fall in serious head
injuries as helmet wearing rates increase. But no such thing
happens, so it looks like the supposition you've made is flawed.

Quoted message said:

For your information in our country Health care is so
expensive that most people seldom go to ER.

But this will still lead to reported serious accidents falling /if/
the helmets are reducing the need to get to ER. But is doesn't.

Quoted message said:

The man who landed on his head was taken in an ambulance, I seriously
doubt if anyone at the hospital took any data.

You think they don't record admissions? So where does all the data
there is come from?

As I suggested to Jim, "Show me the casualty savings!" What you've
said above in no way prevents effective helmets changuing the
numbers, but the numbers don't change.

You complained about how dubious relying on statistics is, yet
you've chosen to use a tiny sample base in your /own/ statistics,
so your own statistics are clearly flawed. Yet you choose to use
them rather than much sounder data sets with usable sample bases.
If you don't like statistics because they can be misused, stop
using bad data yourself.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Helmets are kind of like tire pumps. Having a pump along for the ride won't
prevent p*nct*r*s, but if you get one, you'll be glad you had one with you.

I wonder if the insurance industry has good data about h*lm*ts and how they
figure into injury/treatment equation.
much snippage of 'your data are [censored] and my data are gold standard'

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

gotbent said:

Helmets are kind of like tire pumps. Having a pump along for the ride won't
prevent p*nct*r*s, but if you get one, you'll be glad you had one with you.

I wonder if the insurance industry has good data about h*lm*ts and how they
figure into injury/treatment equation.

The problem with that sort of observational study is that it is a much
discredited way of assessing things and has led to some major medical
mistakes such as in MMR and HRT. For a critique have a look at
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/3/464 and
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7471/868

I don't know about elsewhere in the world but in the UK Courts, no
insurance company has succeeded with a contributory negligence claim in
personal head injury cases when the cyclist victim was not wearing a
helmet (and they have tried). Either they have the data and are not
using it, suggesting it does not help them, or they don't have it.

Someone closely involved in two of these cases has said:

"Referring back to the Court case mentioned early, the very eminent QC
under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried repeatedly to
persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side, and
the technical expert, to state that one must be safer wearing a helmet
than without. All three refused to so do, stating that they had seen
severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle
helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of cycle helmets is
much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made."

and

"In a recent Court case, a respected materials specialist argued that a
cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from
their cycle, without any real forward momentum, would not have had their
injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved
contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of
no more than 75 joules (his estimate, with which I was in full
agreement). The court found in favour of his argument."

Make of that what you will.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

gotbent said:

Helmets are kind of like tire pumps. Having a pump along for the
ride won't prevent p*nct*r*s, but if you get one, you'll be glad
you had one with you.

Up to a point... but the above implies if you're in an accident you
/will/ be better off with a helmet. But if that were the case then
we would expect to see a dent in the serious accident figures with
increasing helmet usage, but we don't.

What the mechanism underlying this lack of effect is we don't
really know. There are various suggested mechanisms but we don't
know to what extent they operate. But we do know the final outcome
of that operation appears to be no effect on serious injuries, so
we can't say with any confidence that if you have an accident with
potential to give serious head injuries that you will be better off
with a helmet than without. Read the quote from Brian Walker I
gave again (Tony has re-quoted it in the other followup to your post).

I'll grant you that it seems obvious you'd be better off with a
helmet, but just because common sense tells you that it doesn't
make it right. Common sense also says if they help we'll see an
effect on casualties, so with two bits of obvious common sense
we've got contradictions. Which tells us we can't simply rely on
common sense for the answers.

Quoted message said:

I wonder if the insurance industry has good data about h*lm*ts
and how they figure into injury/treatment equation

See Tony's reply for more on that.

Quoted message said:

much
snippage of 'your data are [censored] and my data are gold standard'

One or two anecdotes vs. the effective total sum of all anecdotes.
There really isn't much question as to which is the more useful
statistical starting point. If you want to argue that even so it
isn't "gold standard" I would agree, but it's still the best we've
got and a better thing to be working with than one or two people
assuring you a helmet saved their life.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

gotbent said:

I'm one of the anecdotal cases. <snip>

I don't doubt it. But there still isn't any reduction in overall
serious injuries from increased helmet wearing.

In the quote previously made eminent neurosurgeons said it was too
complex an issue to say that one was clearly better off with a
helmet than without, so it is entirely possible that in some cases
helmets can make things worse (have a google for "rotational
injuries" as a possible mechanism, in addition to more cases of
hitting one's head /at all/ due to an effectively bigger and
heavier head). You can't make any assumptions about a notional
next accident and if a hat will help, hinder, or do nothing, yet
that's what a lot of people are doing.

Given it is quite natural for people to assume a positive benefit
you won't hear anecdotes saying how they made things worse, but
remember that population level statistics of all serious injuries
include all the positive anecdotes, including those where an injury
has been removed from the serious bracket altogether, and despite
all these anecdotes things haven't improved.

I had my own anecdote which you can google out from uk.rec.cycling
where I was wearing a helmet and I was convinced it saved me a much
worse injury. Perhaps it did, but that is still no guarantee about
how a helmet will affect another accident I may have. The hard
numbers tell me my chances are no better or no worse whether or not
I wear one. It was /very/ difficult abandoning my helmet for
routine riding, but now I have I'm glad I did: I'm much more
comfortable and enjoy my cycling more, and there is no evidence,
/despite/ my previous anecdotal experience, that I am in any more
danger of a serious head injury.

See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019 for more detail and
references.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 07:19:29 -0700, Rich <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Possible answers:
We're moving much slower while walking
We have seatbelts and airbags for driving
We also moving slower runnning then biking
We have banisters to hold onto while descending staircases

Interesting, then, how the proportion of head injuries for
hospitalised pedestrians and cyclists turns out to be almost exactly
the same (30.0% for cyclists, 30.1% for peds). And the dominant cause
of those injuries turns out to be something which vastly exceeds the
protective capacity of any available helmet, namely impact with motor
vehicles.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

In <[email hidden]>, on 10/30/05

at 05:23 AM said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Again, you are using apples to make statements about oranges and are clueless that you are doing it.

Quoted message said:

I'm agnostic on this issue and generally stay out of these discussions
but I wish you would stop writing this over and over. It is perfectly
legitimate to ask: Why has society deemed it appropriate / necessary /
mandatory to wear a helmet while cycling but not while walking, driving,
running, descending staircases, etc, etc...)?

Appples and oranges. If you can not see that, then there is no point
saying anything else.

jim

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
[email hidden]
-----------------------------------------------------------

On 30 Oct 2005 06:40:13 -0800, "Butch" <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great
I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect
you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the
point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not
reported.

And you don't seem to get the point that there is no known case where
cyclist injuries have reduced with increasing helmet use (but plenty
which show the opposite).

I am neither young nor naive. I have also read most of the research,
both ways. If you'd like to cite the study on which you base your
opinion?

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:03:12 -0700, [email hidden] said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Can you say for certain that if no one were to wear helmets, the
situation would not be worse than it is?

Interesting reversal of the burden of proof there.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

In <[email hidden]>, on 10/30/05

at 10:12 AM said:

Tony Raven wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In the US, in 1991 18% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 568,000
cyclist accidents requiring hospital treatment. 12% were head injuries.
By 2000, 30% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 627,160 cyclist >

accidents. 12% were head injuries. So whatever all those extra helmets

Quoted message said:

were doing they were not reducing head injuries.

In the UK the proportion of female under-16 cyclists wearing helmets is
double that of males. The proportion female under 16 cyclists suffering
head injuries is virtually identical to that of males. So whatever all
those extra helmets are doing for the girls, they are not protecting
them from head injuries.

The country with the lowest head injury rate for cyclists is Holland.
They also have the lowest helmet wearing rate in the developed world at
0.1%. Curiously the USA is the reverse with six times the death rate per
km cycled and a 38% helmet wearing rate.

In Australia where helmets are mandatory and enforced, one state has
repealed the helmet law. That state now has the highest cycling rate
and lowest head injury rate in Australia.

Quoted message said:

Very interesting information, and I'd like to read more. Can you post
links to the studies or web sites where you got them?

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly. I do not know about
Australia, but the US is not cyclist friendly. I've had seveal encounters
where I've had drivers deliberately squueze me to the side of the road and
hazards there while yelling that I should get off the road and on the
sidewalk. Even had someone tell me they hoped some driver would run over
me.

Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is
driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated,
they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions.

jim

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
[email hidden]
-----------------------------------------------------------

In <[email hidden]>, on 10/30/05

at 12:49 PM said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is misguided because it concerns only "serious" accidents and I'm
betting you agree that far more less than "serious" accidents happen
than serious.

Quoted message said:

Certainly "less than serious" accidents happen, but by their very nature
they aren't serious. I've banged my head a few times and drawn blood
doing housework, I'm not alone in that. I don't feel the need for a
hlemt doing it though, and I doubt you do either.

Is housework considered a hazardous acitivity? No.

So do not compare apples and oranges. A better comparison would be
construction sites where helmets ARE required (at least in the US) because
it is a dangerous activity.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Where are the stats for those, the ones that without a
helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching?

Quoted message said:

If there were a significant number of those then there would be a drop
in the overall figures of serious injuries, but there aren't.

That is an assumption. Unless, of course you can cite a study saying
specifically that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Put -'em up if you gottem, but I'm lookin' forward to your sounds of
silence.

Quoted message said:

They don't exist because they don't get to ER rooms. But they don't get
into the serious figures which they would have done otherwise, and the
serious head injury rates would have gone down accordingly. But they
haven't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Where is your data on non-serious injuries? Without any on your part,
anecdotal evidence is better than your lack of information.

Quoted message said:

See above. For non-serious injuries they amount to basically
discomfort, /if/ I have one. A helmet means discomfort on 100% of
trips.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, if it is that easy, why haven't you done it?

Quoted message said:

Why haven't I done what?

You said it should be easy to get those studoes/facts . . .

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Really, how do you propose that be measured? They only measure srious
injuries and have no data at all on those that walk away without a
report being filed.

Quoted message said:

But if they meant a serious injury was /avoided/ then the annual rate of
serious injuries would be coming down, and would show a better trend
than that for pedestrians who have historically matched cyclist trends
for years since before helmets were introduced. This hasn't happened.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Again, you are using apples to make statements about oranges and are
clueless that you are doing it.

Quoted message said:

No I'm not. You read through the work at www.cyclehelmets.org and pick
the real holes in it. It's fully referenced so you can get back to the
sources.

Sorry, Pete, you are. The study onlyu concerns serious injusries and
nothing else. It misses taking into account a lot of variables that are
imprtant to being able to make any categorical statement.\

jim

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
[email hidden]
-----------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:42:27 -0800, [email hidden] said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Appples and oranges. If you can not see that, then there is no point
saying anything else.

Yes, apples and oranges. Cyclists who choose to wear helmets and ride
in family groups on bike trails, versus those who do not and ride
alone on city streets. Apples and oranges. Only an idiot would fail
to see the difference. And only a zealot would attribute it to the
headgear rather than the riding style.

Interestingly, where the helmet usage rate rises by very large amounts
in a very short time (such as in New Zealand, where it doubled in a
single year) there is no discernible change in recorded head injury
rates. Obviously someone forgot to tell all those apples to become
oranges...

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

In <[email hidden]>, on 10/30/05

at 04:25 PM said:

Lest anyone think Peter is a lone voice...

Quoted message said:

Butch said:

Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great
I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect
you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the
point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not
reported.

Quoted message said:

Which should mean, if they work, that reported injury rates go down as
more people wear them. Whereas what we find is that the trend for
cyclists is the same as for pedestrians regardless of changes in
cyclists' helmet-wearing rate.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For your information in our country Health care is so
expensive that most people seldom go to ER.

Quoted message said:

Luckily Peter is quoting UK stats, where people go to Casualty (ER) for
any injury they haven't got a plaster to fit. Among other things, these
stats show walking and cycling to be about equally hazardous, and to
vary the same way over time - despite cycle helmet wearing rates
increasing from 0 to about half of cyclists in the last 20 years.

Quoted message said:

One of the reasons people perceive cycling to be dangerous is the
relentless propaganda saying it is, from those promoting helmets.

Quoted message said:

Wear a helmet, if you wish, to prevent those small injuries you're not
going to go to the ER for. But forget about it saving your life.

And the proof that it will NOT save your life is? Do not confuse overall
stats with what happens in any given situation. I am sure that there are
isolated cases where the use of a helmet IS the direct cause of death in
what would have been a non-serious accident. For isntance, not work
properly, helmet slides bbehind head, straps cut off breathing . . .

Of course, the acid test is: are you willing to take your CHILD with you
on a bike in traffic without that child wearing a helmet? Are you willintg
to take your CHILD with you mountain biking without that child wearing a
helmet?

That's where the rubber meets the road.

jim

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
[email hidden]
-----------------------------------------------------------

In <[email hidden]>, on 10/30/05

at 05:08 PM said:

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

But it isn't "misguided advice", it is reporting the simple truth
that population data does not show any noticable improvement in
head injury rates with increased helmet wearing. That that *fact*
runs counter to "common sense" doesn't make it wrong.

It is misguided because it concerns only "serious" accidents and I'm
betting you agree that far more less than "serious" accidents happen
than serious. Where are the stats for those, the ones that without a
helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching?

Put -'em up if you gottem, but I'm lookin' forward to your sounds of
silence.

Quoted message said:

I'll put them up for Pete if I may.

Quoted message said:

Do you know the definitions of a "serious" injury? In most countries
your "ER visit and stitching" would be counted as serious in the
official definitions.

As I was saying. Non-serious are those you DO NOT end up in the ER for.

Quoted message said:

In the US, in 1991 18% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 568,000
cyclist accidents requiring hospital treatment. 12% were head injuries.
By 2000, 30% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 627,160 cyclist
accidents. 12% were head injuries. So whatever all those extra helmets
were doing they were not reducing head injuries.

Missing bit of data and that is the total number of riders in both years.
Source?

Quoted message said:

In the UK the proportion of female under-16 cyclists wearing helmets is
double that of males. The proportion female under 16 cyclists suffering
head injuries is virtually identical to that of males. So whatever all
those extra helmets are doing for the girls, they are not protecting
them from head injuries.

Quoted message said:

The country with the lowest head injury rate for cyclists is Holland.
They also have the lowest helmet wearing rate in the developed world at
0.1%. Curiously the USA is the reverse with six times the death rate per
km cycled and a 38% helmet wearing rate.

That has a lot to do with wach copuntries view of cycling. Europe is
cycling friendly. The US is not.

Quoted message said:

In Australia where helmets are mandatory and enforced, one state has
repealed the helmet law. That state now has the highest cycling rate
and lowest head injury rate in Australia.

Interesting, but what happens in Oz may or may not be relevant to the US
or anywhere elase for that matter.

Quoted message said:

Starting to see a pattern?

Yep, one person's facts are another's damned lies.

Quoted message said:

Whatever common sense is telling you about the protective effect of
helmets, experience around the world says its wrong.

This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because of
attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that comparative
information, the stats are interesting, but may not be telling you what
YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who have cycled in Europe
who would not venture on the road in the US because of the attitude of US
drivers.

jim

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
[email hidden]
-----------------------------------------------------------