Helmet Laws and Statistics

John Wood said:

Hi:

I was just looking at bicycle accident statistics, and I know that most helmet laws came into
effect early in the 1990's. I don't see any decrease or in accident or fatalities. They seem to
hover in the 600 to 800 range (in the states anyway). It it not something that I take lightly, as
a member of my high school died in a bicycle crash. But I am just wondering if this helmet thing
is just some mother-hen government project to make us feel safer, when paying attention to the
road, and not biking in the dark would be a better solution.

Just a comment.

J.

Take it to soc, troll.

It is very difficult to regulate stupidity. There are a few taxes on stupidity but no outright bans
as of yet.

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

Quoted message said:

Hi:

I was just looking at bicycle accident statistics, and I know that most helmet laws came into
effect early in the 1990's. I don't see any decrease or in accident or fatalities. They seem to
hover in the 600 to 800 range (in the states anyway). It it not something that I take lightly, as
a member of my high school died in a bicycle crash. But I am just wondering if this helmet thing
is just some mother-hen government project to make us feel safer, when paying attention to the
road, and not biking in the dark would be a better solution.

Just a comment.

J.

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

Quoted message said:

Hi:

I was just looking at bicycle accident statistics, and I know that most helmet laws came into
effect early in the 1990's. I don't see any decrease or in accident or fatalities. They seem to
hover in the 600 to 800 range (in the states anyway). It it not something that I take lightly, as
a member of my high school died in a bicycle crash. But I am just wondering if this helmet thing
is just some mother-hen government project to make us feel safer, when paying attention to the
road, and not biking in the dark would be a better solution.

Just a comment.

J.

Maybe people just took greater chances with the helmet rather than without. Just like how once seat
belt laws were enacted, people drove faster, negating any reduction in fatalities.

Regards, Lester

This has been gone over again and again. There's no way to convince people that a helmet is little
more effective than a wooly cap so you might as well not even try. If you want to learn the facts
behind helmets try:

home.earthlink.netpage2.htmlOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Hi:

I was just looking at bicycle accident statistics, and I know that

most

Quoted message said:

helmet laws came into effect early in the 1990's. I don't see any decrease or in accident or
fatalities. They seem to hover in the 600

to

Quoted message said:

800 range (in the states anyway). It it not something that I take lightly, as a member of my high
school died in a bicycle crash. But

I am

Quoted message said:

just wondering if this helmet thing is just some mother-hen

government

Quoted message said:

project to make us feel safer, when paying attention to the road,

and

Quoted message said:

not biking in the dark would be a better solution.

Just a comment.

J.

Tom Kunich said:

This has been gone over again and again. There's no way to convince people that a helmet is little
more effective than a wooly cap so you might as well not even try. If you want to learn the facts
behind helmets try:

home.earthlink.netpage2.htmlOpen ↗

That's right Tom,"There's no way..." <G>

Regards,

Zeno

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

This has been gone over again and again. There's no way to convince people that a helmet is
little more effective than a wooly cap so you might as well not even try. If you want to learn
the facts behind helmets try:

home.earthlink.netpage2.htmlOpen ↗

That's right Tom,"There's no way..." <G>

Regards,

Zeno

There may be, let someone wack you with a baseball bat while wearing a wooly cap, maybe then one of
your survivors would try it with a helmet on.

Dashii

I agree that the amount of protection is exaggerated, but who are you to say how much protection is
"significant"?

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

Quoted message said:

This has been gone over again and again. There's no way to convince people that a helmet is little
more effective than a wooly cap so you might as well not even try. If you want to learn the facts
behind helmets try:

home.earthlink.netpage2.htmlOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Hi:

I was just looking at bicycle accident statistics, and I know that

most

Quoted message said:

helmet laws came into effect early in the 1990's. I don't see any decrease or in accident or
fatalities. They seem to hover in the 600

to

Quoted message said:

800 range (in the states anyway). It it not something that I take lightly, as a member of my
high school died in a bicycle crash. But

I am

Quoted message said:

just wondering if this helmet thing is just some mother-hen

government

Quoted message said:

project to make us feel safer, when paying attention to the road,

and

Quoted message said:

not biking in the dark would be a better solution.

Just a comment.

J.

Dashi Toshii said:

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

This has been gone over again and again. There's no way to convince people that a helmet is
little more effective than a wooly cap so you might as well not even try. If you want to learn
the facts behind helmets try:

home.earthlink.netpage2.htmlOpen ↗

That's right Tom,"There's no way..." <G>

Regards,

Zeno

There may be, let someone wack you with a baseball bat while wearing a wooly cap, maybe then one
of your survivors would try it with a helmet on.

Yes - the next time I am out biking I will be sure to avoid those baseball bats falling from the
sky. In fact the weather report did mention thundershowers and 50% chance of baseball bats.

Just some guy who has graphed out the last 15 years of bicycle deaths and noted no difference
whatsoever as helmet use has gone from near zero to probably 80%+. Just some guy who has talked to
Dr. Shively in a Tranportation Committee hearing in Sacramento many years ago where he admitted that
helmets have essentially no effect. Just some guy who has calculated what the helmet standards
really mean and note that they are good for a collision of some couple of miles per hour and not the
12 mph advertised. Just some guy who has actually bothered to learn about helmets instead of taking
the word of the company who invented the things.

Just some guy who has published high praise for helmets that have saved lives in the past - one from
Stevens who was wearing a clothe hat, one from a Pro racer who was wearing a hairnet and several
from people who were wearing Skid Lids - a helmet manufactured by a company put out of business
because they couldn't pass the very first Snell standard. All these people had high priase for
helmets and talked about how their lives had been saved by them. And not one of these helmets could
pass even the beginnings of the standards we have now. And these "modern" standards offer almost no
protection at all.

Tell me, if you don't want to actually learn something about subjects you post on, why do
you bother?

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

Quoted message said:

I agree that the amount of protection is exaggerated, but who are

you to say

Quoted message said:

how much protection is "significant"?

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

Quoted message said:

This has been gone over again and again. There's no way to

convince

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people that a helmet is little more effective than a wooly cap so

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

might as well not even try. If you want to learn the facts behind helmets try:

home.earthlink.netpage2.htmlOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Hi:

I was just looking at bicycle accident statistics, and I know

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

most

Quoted message said:

helmet laws came into effect early in the 1990's. I don't see

any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

decrease or in accident or fatalities. They seem to hover in the

600

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

800 range (in the states anyway). It it not something that I

take

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

lightly, as a member of my high school died in a bicycle crash.

But

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am

Quoted message said:

just wondering if this helmet thing is just some mother-hen

government

Quoted message said:

project to make us feel safer, when paying attention to the

road,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and

Quoted message said:

not biking in the dark would be a better solution.

Just a comment.

J.

Who says I don't want to learn? I doubt I can learn anything from you about helmets.You are clearly
biased. You pick and agenda and then go off and try to prove it to satisfy your ego.

Helmets are probably not as effective as the industry wants us to believe, but a lot more affective
than you state. I don't expect to learn anything from someone that has chosen a point of view and
then sought the evidence to prove it. Do you realize how common this is and how obvious it is to
everyone else? Scott Adams pokes fun at this with his "Dilbert Principal" which basically states
that the natural tendency of humans is to make up their minds first and then justify it afterwards.
This appears to be what you have done with helmets.

If your website had balanced data, (pros and cons of helmet use) then it would be a nice resource. I
did not read the whole thing and I admit I made up my mind rather quickly based on the first page
and what I remember from your previous helmet rants. If all you have is data that points to your
conclusion, then the value is greatly reduced and it dangerous to anyone to would draw conclusions
from it. If only one person leaves their helmet at home as a result of what you have published and
if that causes further injury where the helmet would have helped, then that is on your head. With
any safety issue, there is a moral obligation to assure that any bias errs on the side of safety,
and in my opinion, your data errs on the side of risky behavior. It reminds me of the bath houses in
San Francisco and how the people that wanted to continue using them complained that there was "no
evidence" that the bath houses caused any additional risk. You say the same thing about leaving your
helmet at home. You must have learned a lot from your campaigning back then.

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

Quoted message said:

Just some guy who has graphed out the last 15 years of bicycle deaths and noted no difference
whatsoever as helmet use has gone from near zero to probably 80%+. Just some guy who has talked to
Dr. Shively in a Tranportation Committee hearing in Sacramento many years ago where he admitted
that helmets have essentially no effect. Just some guy who has calculated what the helmet
standards really mean and note that they are good for a collision of some couple of miles per hour
and not the 12 mph advertised. Just some guy who has actually bothered to learn about helmets
instead of taking the word of the company who invented the things.

Just some guy who has published high praise for helmets that have saved lives in the past - one
from Stevens who was wearing a clothe hat, one from a Pro racer who was wearing a hairnet and
several from people who were wearing Skid Lids - a helmet manufactured by a company put out of
business because they couldn't pass the very first Snell standard. All these people had high
priase for helmets and talked about how their lives had been saved by them. And not one of these
helmets could pass even the beginnings of the standards we have now. And these "modern" standards
offer almost no protection at all.

Tell me, if you don't want to actually learn something about subjects you post on, why do
you bother?

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

Quoted message said:

I agree that the amount of protection is exaggerated, but who are

you to say

Quoted message said:

how much protection is "significant"?

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

Quoted message said:

This has been gone over again and again. There's no way to

convince

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people that a helmet is little more effective than a wooly cap so

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

might as well not even try. If you want to learn the facts behind helmets try:

home.earthlink.netpage2.htmlOpen ↗

"John Wood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
> Hi:
>
> I was just looking at bicycle accident statistics, and I know

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

most
> helmet laws came into effect early in the 1990's. I don't see

any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> decrease or in accident or fatalities. They seem to hover in the

600

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to
> 800 range (in the states anyway). It it not something that I

take

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> lightly, as a member of my high school died in a bicycle crash.

But

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am
> just wondering if this helmet thing is just some mother-hen
government
> project to make us feel safer, when paying attention to the

road,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and
> not biking in the dark would be a better solution.
>
> Just a comment.
>
> J.
>
>

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

Quoted message said:

Who says I don't want to learn? I doubt I can learn anything from

you about

Quoted message said:

helmets.You are clearly biased. You pick and agenda and then go off

and try

Quoted message said:

to prove it to satisfy your ego.

I suggest you grow up. Bicycle helmets were invented by Bell to sell to bicyclists - not because
there was ever a problem with sreious head injuries and death to bicyclists. Taking a shower in your
own home gives you about an equal chance of a serious or fatal head injury and I don't suppose you
wear a helmet in the shower. Virtually every action sport from baseball to rodeo has a far greater
chance of head injury and high school football has more serious head injuries and deaths each year
WHILE WEARING HELMETS than bicycling.

And you have the unmitigated gaul to think that I have an agenda.

Quoted message said:

Helmets are probably not as effective as the industry wants us to

believe,

Quoted message said:

but a lot more affective than you state.

I agree that they are affective.

Quoted message said:

I don't expect to learn anything from someone that has chosen a

point of

Quoted message said:

view and then sought the evidence to prove it.

It happens that at one time I was young, stupid and silly enough to believe that a crash helmet
would probably be a positive benefit. But then after racing motorcycles for a couple of years I
became the safety director for the American Federation of Motorcyclists and decided I'd better have
a few facts. So I went to the source and talked to those who invented the helmet and invented the
standards. Then I calculated what it all meant and when the answers came out funny I went back and
asked about it. And got straight answers in private that would never have been said in public.

Then I started studying traffic accidents and fatalities and discovered much to my dismay that
helmets didn't change the numbers or severities of head injuries.

Then entering bicycling again I assumed that since bicycle helmets weren't required to withstand the
speeds of motorcycles they should have some advantage. But of course aside from the penetration
tests the standards were the same for both - and what was horribly inadequate for a motorcycle
helmet was nevertheless entirely inadequate for a bicycle helmet.

And again graphing out bicycle injuries from 1986 onward we see the same thing as with motorcycles -
overwhelming use of helmets makes no difference in head injuries.

Quoted message said:

Do you realize how common this is and how obvious it is to everyone else? Scott Adams pokes fun at
this with his "Dilbert

Principal"

Quoted message said:

which basically states that the natural tendency of humans is to

make up

Quoted message said:

their minds first and then justify it afterwards. This appears to be

what

Quoted message said:

you have done with helmets.

I find that very often that people who disagree with me the loudest often cite, as their source of
knowledge, a cartoon strip.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

And you have the unmitigated gaul to think that I have an agenda.

Leave the French out of it, Tom.

Let's make the real simple.

Do you take the position that helmets make no difference, or very little difference? In reading your
material, I see a lot of rhetoric that seems to say both. I want to hear your position in clear
language. Please answer this or I am done with you are this topic.

I have said that I agree that the helmet industry exaggerates tremendously. I rarely wear a helmet
myself. I have a white Giro that I use in extremely hot weather where I know that the direct
sunlight will make it that much more difficult for me to keep cool. If there is a long climb, even
with direct Sun, I will leave the helmet at home. I have also worn it for wet weather. IOW, I use it
as a hat more than anything else. I also use it to keep [censored] from getting upset at group rides
and for racing (because it is required).

Still and all, there have probably been more than a few lives saved by the helmets. The number of
lives saved may even be fewer than lives that would have been saved if people were to wear helmets
in the shower. This is not the point, although you seem to think it is relevant.

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

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

And you have the unmitigated gaul to think that I have an agenda.

Leave the French out of it, Tom.

Wouldn't that be Gail?

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

Quoted message said:

Let's make the real simple.

If a couple of web pages, references and a published paper cited in several other papers isn't going
to explain it to you how the hell do you propose to understand anything at all? It is easy enough to
find papers on the subject all over the web if you were really interested in learning something but
plainly you are not. You have an opinion and will hold that opinion as if it has some value to you
regardless.

So as you say, be done with it.

Quoted message said:

Do you take the position that helmets make no difference, or very

little

Quoted message said:

difference? In reading your material, I see a lot of rhetoric that

seems to

Quoted message said:

say both. I want to hear your position in clear language. Please

answer this

Quoted message said:

or I am done with you are this topic.

I have said that I agree that the helmet industry exaggerates

tremendously.

Quoted message said:

I rarely wear a helmet myself. I have a white Giro that I use in

extremely

Quoted message said:

hot weather where I know that the direct sunlight will make it that

much

Quoted message said:

more difficult for me to keep cool. If there is a long climb, even

with

Quoted message said:

direct Sun, I will leave the helmet at home. I have also worn it for

wet

Quoted message said:

weather. IOW, I use it as a hat more than anything else. I also use

it to

Quoted message said:

keep [censored] from getting upset at group rides and for racing

(because it is

Quoted message said:

required).

Still and all, there have probably been more than a few lives saved

by the

Quoted message said:

helmets. The number of lives saved may even be fewer than lives that

would

Quoted message said:

have been saved if people were to wear helmets in the shower. This

is not

Quoted message said:

the point, although you seem to think it is relevant.

Nick Burns said:

The number of lives saved may even be fewer than lives that would have been saved if people were
to wear helmets in the shower. This is not the point, although you seem to think it is relevant.

heh-heh I'm sure that's true because both are hazardous and more people shower than bike.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

And you have the unmitigated gaul to think that I have an agenda.

Leave the French out of it, Tom.

Wouldn't that be Gail?

Gaul

n 1: a person of French descent [syn: frog, Gaul]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> And you have the unmitigated gaul to think that I have an agenda.

Leave the French out of it, Tom.

Wouldn't that be Gail?

Gaul

n 1: a person of French descent [syn: frog, Gaul]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

I think you have your words (not to mention your spelling) confused:

Gaelic

adj : relating to or characteristic of the Celts [syn: Celtic, Gaelic] n : any of several related
languages of the Celts in Ireland and Scotland [syn: Gaelic, Goidelic, Erse]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > And you have the unmitigated gaul to think that I have an agenda.
>
> Leave the French out of it, Tom.

Wouldn't that be Gail?

Gaul

n 1: a person of French descent [syn: frog, Gaul]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

I think you have your words (not to mention your spelling) confused:

Gaelic

adj : relating to or characteristic of the Celts [syn: Celtic, Gaelic]
n : any of several related languages of the Celts in Ireland and Scotland [syn: Gaelic, Goidelic,
Erse]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

and let's assume he really meant #6 below:

The noun "gall" has 6 senses in WordNet.

1. saddle sore, gall -- (an open sore on the back of a horse caused by ill-fitting or badly
adjusted saddle)
2. gall -- (a skin sore caused by chafing)
3. gall -- (abnormal swelling of plant tissue caused by insects or microorganisms or injury)
4. resentment, bitterness, gall, rancor, rancour -- (a feeling of deep and bitter anger
and ill-will)
5. bile, gall -- (a digestive juice secreted by the liver and stored in the gallbladder; aids in the
digestion of fats)
6. crust, gall, impertinence, impudence, insolence, cheekiness, freshness -- (the trait of being
rude and impertinent; inclined to take liberties)