Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????

[Tony Raven]

GaryG wrote:
>
>> It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such.
>
> They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone?
>

Because the evidence is they make more serious injuries worse. A cloth
cycling cap will help with scrapes and such without the other problem.

>
> Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a
> certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our
> lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear
> one?
>

Most people assume that. The evidence is that they don't and actually
seem to worsen the situation. In that case why would you wear one?


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tony Raven]

Hadron Quark wrote:
>
> If a 4 year old was to be knocked of his/her bike by (say) a dog and hit
> his/her head on the kerb would that child
>
> 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame
> 2) Come out injury free
> 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling
> 4) Be better off with a helmet
> 5) Some or all of the above?

The evidence is in favour of 2 or 3.

If a 4 year old were to run and trip over a shoelace and hit his head on
a kerb would that child

1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame
2) Come out injury free
3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling
4) Be better off with a helmet
5) Some or all of the above?

This second scenario is far more frequent than your first scenario and
the evidence is that head injuries form a significantly greater
proportion of child non-cycling head injuries than child cycling
injuries that require hospital treatment. So shouldn't all four year
olds wear helmets all the time?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[GaryG]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> GaryG wrote:
> >
> >> It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such.
> >
> > They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone?
> >
>
> Because the evidence is they make more serious injuries worse. A cloth
> cycling cap will help with scrapes and such without the other problem.

Hmmm...perhaps we could improve upon this with kevlar cycling caps?

>
> >
> > Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a
> > certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our
> > lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not
wear
> > one?
> >
>
> Most people assume that. The evidence is that they don't and actually
> seem to worsen the situation. In that case why would you wear one?

Because I've seen no convincing evidence that they increase risk, and even
the anti's admit that the reduce the risk of scratches, bruises, and
abrasions. That's good enough for me.

GG

>
>
> --
> Tony
>
> "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
> his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
> - Leonardo da Vinci

 

[elyob]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Why did you copy UKRC in? It's your discussion, keep it!

 

[Tony Raven]

GaryG wrote:
>
> Because I've seen no convincing evidence that they increase risk, and even
> the anti's admit that the reduce the risk of scratches, bruises, and
> abrasions. That's good enough for me.
>

Many studies show convincing evidence. e.g

Rodgers, in a study of 8 million cyclists in the US found "that the
bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated
with increased helmet use"

Hewson in a study of UK police and hospital data found "The conclusion
cannot be avoided that there is no evidence from the benchmark dataset
in the UK that helmets have had a marked safety benefit at the
population level for road using pedal cyclists"

Mok et al found that injured child cyclists wearing helmets reported
riding faster and suffered greater damage to their bikes than the
non-helmet wearing ones

etc.

What we absolutely do know though is enforced helmet wearing leads to a
substantial reduction in cycling, particularly amongst children. That
is bad for cycling and bad for the health of children (where we have an
increasing epidemic of obesity and lack of exercise).

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Cathy Kearns]

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_WarrenRogersAssociates.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > How do you make kids wear a helmet? They really hate wearing them.
>
> Simple: tell them they can't ride without one.

Worked for me for my children. One continues to ride a bike. The other
decided it wasn't worth it, and gave up bike riding when she entered junior
high. Prefered to walk the 1.5 miles each way. As we were looking at
colleges I was surprised to hear this child that gave up bike riding at age
11 wouldn't mind getting a bike for transportation when she goes away to
school, as by then she won't need to wear a helmet. (In California adults
(age 18) are not required by law to wear helmets while cycling.)

 

[Peter Clinch]

GaryG wrote:
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such.
>
> They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone?

For the same reason I don't wear one for that reason when walking,
running, gardening and doing odd jobs around the house, all of which
have resulted in painful scrapes to my head at one time or another.

And that reason is the faff of wearing it is not mitigated enough by the
pain of not wearing it, given that the problems are so few and far between.

If it were clearly, objectively the case that they were worth wearing
for scrapes then it would be obviously beneficial for the Dutch cycling
population to wear them more than almost anyone else, as they cycle
more. Yet wearing rates in NL are /very/ low. (As are the head injury
rates).

> Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a
> certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our
> lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear
> one?

So why not wear one for other activities that also involve risk. You
wear a seatbelt in the car, why not a helmet too? Try banging your head
against the door pillar where the seatbelt mounts with and without a
helmet. Which hurts more? Without the helmet, I guess, so you wear it
in the car because it will mitigate risk? You've even got air
conditioning and no work to do, so it makes even less sense not to than
on a bike.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Hadron Quark wrote:

> If a 4 year old was to be knocked of his/her bike by (say) a dog and hit
> his/her head on the kerb would that child
>
> 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame

No

> 2) Come out injury free

For some values of "injury". If falling over and banging one's head was
so often serious and fatal then we'd have been experiencing carbage in
playgrounds and on streets for centuries. Yet he have not.

> 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling

First quite possible (see previous point), though they'd probably be
clutching their head and bawling. Just as they would if they'd fallen
over and hit their head playing chase.

> 4) Be better off with a helmet

Too many variables in too wide a set of contexts to really answer
sensibly If they would clearly be better off with it then why wouldn't
they clearly be better off with it when running and jumping, since such
activities cause far more child injuries than cycling. They're more
proportionately productive of head injuries too?

You are still implying the case that cycling is a special case and needs
more protection than running and jumping, while the evidence suggests
otherwise.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Mark Thompson]

>> Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear
>> one?

> Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the
> Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts
> such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you
> wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.

A considered response would be something along the lines of:

"The cyclist may wish to weigh up the benefits from limited protection
against minor injury and the disbenefits that come from wearing a helmet,
which are not limited to issues of comfort and convenience. Cycle helmets
do well at preventing minor injuries to the top of the head, but may
increase the likelyhood of severe brain injury[1]."

The question "why not wear a helmet when walking" is not childish, as
walking exposes you to a similar or greater risk of head injury than
cycling. That you pretend to be ignorant of this leads me to conclude that
you're trolling. Fcksocks, hooked again <shoots self in head>



[1]
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00012-X>
<http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1039>

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

> Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the
> Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts
> such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you
> wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.

If it's so childish it should be easy to answer. You still haven't said
why you think cycling makes head protection sensible where other
activities that are at least as productive as serious head injuries
don't merit any such interventions.

Your position and logic on head protection for different activities are
inconsistent.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Hadron Quark]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> writes:

> Hadron Quark wrote:
>> If a 4 year old was to be knocked of his/her bike by (say) a dog and
>> hit
>> his/her head on the kerb would that child
>> 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame
>> 2) Come out injury free
>> 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling
>> 4) Be better off with a helmet
>> 5) Some or all of the above?
>
> The evidence is in favour of 2 or 3.
>
> If a 4 year old were to run and trip over a shoelace and hit his head
> on a kerb would that child

Should that kid wear a seatbelt too when eating his dinner?

 

[Hadron Quark]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

> GaryG wrote:
>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> It's pretty clear that wearing a helmet can prevent scrapes and such.
>> They why wouldn't you wear a helmet for that reason alone?
>
> For the same reason I don't wear one for that reason when walking,
> running, gardening and doing odd jobs around the house, all of which
> have resulted in painful scrapes to my head at one time or another.

Do you have deabilitating disease?

>
> And that reason is the faff of wearing it is not mitigated enough by
> the pain of not wearing it, given that the problems are so few and far
> between.

I have never crashed a car but I dont doubt the value of a seatbelt in
the *majority* of accident.s

>
> If it were clearly, objectively the case that they were worth wearing
> for scrapes then it would be obviously beneficial for the Dutch
> cycling population to wear them more than almost anyone else, as they
> cycle more. Yet wearing rates in NL are /very/ low. (As are the head
> injury rates).
>
>> Most of us who wear them assume that they mitigate risk...at least to a
>> certain extent. This is similar to other risk mitigation devices in our
>> lives (e.g., seat belts). Given that they do mitigate risk, why not wear
>> one?
>
> So why not wear one for other activities that also involve risk. You
> wear a seatbelt in the car, why not a helmet too? Try banging your

This is so pathetic an argument that its almost laughable.

 

[Hadron Quark]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> If a 4 year old was to be knocked of his/her bike by (say) a dog and hit
>> his/her head on the kerb would that child
>> 1) Have it coming and only has him/herself to blame
>
> No
>
>> 2) Come out injury free
>
> For some values of "injury". If falling over and banging one's head
> was so often serious and fatal then we'd have been experiencing
> carbage in playgrounds and on streets for centuries. Yet he have not.
>
>> 3) Bounce the maleable head off the stone kerb and walk away whistling
>
> First quite possible (see previous point), though they'd probably be
> clutching their head and bawling. Just as they would if they'd fallen
> over and hit their head playing chase.
>
>> 4) Be better off with a helmet
>
> Too many variables in too wide a set of contexts to really answer
> sensibly If they would clearly be better off with it then why
> wouldn't they clearly be better off with it when running and jumping,
> since such activities cause far more child injuries than cycling.
> They're more proportionately productive of head injuries too?
>
> You are still implying the case that cycling is a special case and
> needs more protection than running and jumping, while the evidence
> suggests otherwise.


No Im not : I am not discussing any thing other than cycling. It is who
who is convinced that you are more likely to get a head injury walking
down a pavement to the local shop than when cycling in hazardous
conditions in rush hour traffic.

 

[Tony Raven]

Cathy Kearns wrote:
>
> Worked for me for my children. One continues to ride a bike. The other
> decided it wasn't worth it, and gave up bike riding when she entered junior
> high. Prefered to walk the 1.5 miles each way. As we were looking at
> colleges I was surprised to hear this child that gave up bike riding at age
> 11 wouldn't mind getting a bike for transportation when she goes away to
> school, as by then she won't need to wear a helmet. (In California adults
> (age 18) are not required by law to wear helmets while cycling.)
>
>

Which is an excellent illustration of one good reason many of us oppose
mandatory helmets - they put people off cycling especially children and
there is no clear evidence of any compensating benefit.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tony Raven]

Hadron Quark wrote:

> This is so pathetic an argument that its almost laughable.

Some 1 million Americans a year are injured in trips, slips and falls
and 17,000 of them die as a result.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Peter Clinch]

Hadron Quark wrote:

> Should that kid wear a seatbelt too when eating his dinner?

Does he make a regular habit of falling out of his chair and hurting
himself? If yes it might well be appropriate, otherwise it's probably
too much fuss for averting a risk that's not likely to happen and not
likely to cause a big problem if it does.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Sorni]

Tony Raven wrote:
> GaryG wrote:
>>
>> Because I've seen no convincing evidence that they increase risk,
>> and even the anti's admit that the reduce the risk of scratches,
>> bruises, and abrasions. That's good enough for me.


> Many studies show convincing evidence.

Too bad you didn't cite any! <eg>

> e.g
>
> Rodgers, in a study of 8 million cyclists in the US found "that the
> bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly
> correlated with increased helmet use"

Says absolutely nothing about an /individual's/ risk of being injured being
increased due to wearing a helmet. Also doesn't take into account the types
of cyclists who /keep/ riding after an MHL is passed, as opposed to the
types likely to quit or greatly reduce their riding. Definitely affects the
stats. (See below for full theory.)

> Hewson in a study of UK police and hospital data found "The conclusion
> cannot be avoided that there is no evidence from the benchmark dataset
> in the UK that helmets have had a marked safety benefit at the
> population level for road using pedal cyclists"

And this shows /increased risk of injury/ how, exactly? (Nice double
negative, BTW: "conclusion cannot be avoided that there is no...".)

> Mok et al found that injured child cyclists wearing helmets reported
> riding faster and suffered greater damage to their bikes than the
> non-helmet wearing ones

IOW, the helmet does NOT increase injury rates or severity. CHILD BEHAVIOR
is a completely separate issue -- one which could be well addressed through
education, enforcing rules, etc.

> What we absolutely do know though is enforced helmet wearing leads to
> a substantial reduction in cycling, particularly amongst children. That is
> bad for cycling and bad for the health of children (where we
> have an increasing epidemic of obesity and lack of exercise).

While this may very well be true and should be of concern and addressed, it
also throws off those vaunted overall population studies (along with casual
cyclists, MUP users, DUI cases, etc. etc.) which have no bearing on either
"serious" road cycling or mountain biking.

BTW, the latter two groups -- which make up the bulk of "serious" injuries
most likely -- doubtless keep riding their bikes even after MHLs are passed.
So when others -- in large numbers -- stop or significantly reduce riding
due to those horribly oppressive and restrictive laws, it should be no
surprise that the statistics /appear/ to suggest that injury rates go up
when MHLs are imposed. The number and types of riders likely to get injured
remain close to the same, while the overall number of bike riders is
decreased -- often quite dramatically (according to you guys).

But I'm sure this is taken into account.

Right?

 

[Peter Clinch]

Hadron Quark wrote:

> Do you have deabilitating disease?

Not that I'm aware of, aside from age gradually wearing me down over time.

> I have never crashed a car but I dont doubt the value of a seatbelt in
> the *majority* of accident.s

Nor do I, but seatbelts have a proven track record of helping in A
Random Accident where cycle helmets don't. Furthermore, it is the case
that outside of individual all -other-things-equal accidents that
seatbelts alter driver behaviour and make accidents more likely. The
primary effect of compulsory seatbelt legislation is that drivers keep
getting hurt just as much but cyclist and pedestrian injuries rise.

> This is so pathetic an argument that its almost laughable.

So why can't you actually come up with a logically consistent answer,
rather than just dismissing it? Kids running and jumping produce many,
many ER admissions, and they're more productive of head injuries than
cycling spills. So why does it make sense for child cyclists but not
child runners and jumpers to wear protective headgear? Just answer,
rather than dismiss as "childish" or "pathetic".

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Sorni]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
>> Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the
>> Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish
>> retorts such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why
>> don't you wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.

> If it's so childish it should be easy to answer. You still haven't
> said why you think cycling makes head protection sensible where other
> activities that are at least as productive as serious head injuries
> don't merit any such interventions.
>
> Your position and logic on head protection for different activities
> are inconsistent.

"If Jimmy told you to jump off a bridge, would you?"

That doesn't mean that everything Jimmy advises is stupid.

HTH (but doubt it)

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > Yours is a very sensible position. It's also the one that offends the
> > Anti-Helmet Zealots the most, since it reduces them to childish retorts
> > such as "why don't you wear a helmet in the shower?", "why don't you
> > wear a helmet whilst walking?", etc.
>
> If it's so childish it should be easy to answer. You still haven't said
> why you think cycling makes head protection sensible where other
> activities that are at least as productive as serious head injuries
> don't merit any such interventions.

Showering and walking are "other activities that are as productive of
serious head injuries" as is cycling? Funny thing, I've been walking
alot longer than I've been cycling, yet I have never struck my head in
a fall, despite walking in icy, snowy winter conditions for over 40
years. Never hit my head in a fall (or even fell) in the shower,
either.

OTOH, I have had head hit pavement twice whilst cycling, once with and
once without a helmet. The hit with the helmet was harder, as evidenced
by other bodily damage, yet the damage to my head was worse unhelmeted.


Conclusion: in my personal experience, I am less likely to be exposed
to a potential head injury whilst cycling than whilst either showering
or walking. And, agin in my personal *experience*, if head hits
pavement, I'm better off helmeted.

The bad news for all you URC AHZ data-whores is that personal
experience trumps statistics and mental masturbation *every time*,
sorry.


> Your position and logic on head protection for different activities are
> inconsistent.
>

No, it is not. Guess again.