Helmets

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by S. Anderson
Sorry, can't resist..have to post this.

cnn.combike.helmetsOpen ↗
.reut/index.html

Let the games begin!! :-p

Cheers,

Scott..

a) condensed version: http://tinyurl.com/yveuy

b) no controversy for me. Helmet, helmet, helmet. MTB riding Saturday in Big Bear (SoCal 'mountains.'😉. Downhill stretch. Didn't see the boulder. Flush on the uphill side, but covered in sand. Two foot drop on the downhill side. Going slowly enough that the front just dropped off--about 90 degrees down--whipping me over the bars and drilling my (Bell helmeted) head into the next largest rock.

Helmet now has a four inch hole in it, but the head is (only as intact as it was before the fall).

c) As I've said on this forum before: 90% of the time, I'm on two wheels: bicycle or motorcycle. I don't think there should be any law forcing the use of a helmet, but 1) you won't find me without mine, and 2) maybe they should limit insurance medical coverage for those who don't wear them??

Neil

neil0502 said:

2) maybe they should limit insurance medical coverage for
those who don't wear them??

Uh huh - state and federal legislators that know more about
fine tuning medical coverage than the insurance companies.

If the insurance companies see enough correlation, or the
need to follow it up more closely, they will. And they will
more than adjust premiums to account for it. We don't need
another law.

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on
two wheels...

S. Anderson said:

Let the games begin!! :-p

Cheers,

Scott..

OK, Let's see. Using their own numbers, 134 children died.
Using the 80% figure, that means that 107 died from brain
injury (lets assume that this was brain injury alone and
not, say, one of several fatality-level injuries incurred in
the same accident). Let's assume that helmets will eliminate
100 % of these fatalities. 107 over 27,700.000 users? That's
a ratio of .000386281%. Hey, let's round it off to .0004%.

And we can take the injuries down to about what? Well,
probably no change of significance. The current reported
injuries are about 1 % and most of those are not serious,
beyond what you also get in soccer and playing tag.

Actually, walk into any sports rehab center and you don't
see many kids there from cycling. My bad left knee has let
me make multiple anecdotal assessments, and those places
are filled with soccer kids in the summer and basketball in
the winter.

Yet 'Soccer Moms' are not met with scorn and derision for
putting their kids at risk. From all evidence from the
pundits, it appears they are even allowed to vote.

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on
two wheels...

"neil0502" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

2) maybe they should limit insurance medical coverage for
those who don't wear them??

or cycle at night with dark clothes or swim without a
life jacket or slice bagels without gloves or shower
standing up or climb trees or type without an ergo
keyboard or ski without body armor or eat meat or eat too
many carbs or too few carbs or drive a car (source of 50%
of all head injuries)

How bout we just eliminate insurance altogether?

Pete

On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:18:05 GMT, neil0502
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

As I've said on this forum before: 90% of the time, I'm on
two wheels: bicycle or motorcycle. I don't think there
should be any law forcing the use of a helmet, but 1) you
won't find me without mine, and 2) maybe they should limit
insurance medical coverage for those who don't wear them??

The latter would be perverse. British courts have repeatedly
held (based on the best expert evidence) that helmets are
not a significant factor in injury mitigation, a view which
is backed by population-level statistics.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Pete
"neil0502" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

2) maybe they should limit insurance medical coverage for
those who don't wear them??

or cycle at night with dark clothes or swim without a
life jacket or slice bagels without gloves or shower
standing up or climb trees or type without an ergo
keyboard or ski without body armor or eat meat or eat too
many carbs or too few carbs or drive a car (source of 50%
of all head injuries)

How bout we just eliminate insurance altogether?

Pete

Good with all of that, including the total elimination part. For me, if the decision is to have insurance, I'd rather my rates be determined by individual contract, taking into account my risk factors--not those of the huddled masses. At work, I pay the same thing as 400 pound Betty who lives on Cheetos and Marlboros and takes the elevator to the 2nd floor. I'd rather not.

The slippery slope argument is always a ton of fun, but . . . some risk factors . . . over years of study . . . across huge sample sizes . . . are reasonably well established. It's never been my sense that the actuaries and their Stygian tables are the issue (they have an inordinate amount of data at their disposal). To me, the issue has been the business and marketing people who set pricing relative to each of these risk factors.

If we're prone to exaggerating the case for effect, I'll pose this hypothetical: you're on a 757 with 250 other passengers. You're not quite comfortable wearing your seatbelt, so you don't.

On takeoff, a tire blows out on the nose wheel of the landing gear. All the passengers are bruised and sore from the event, but you've flown into the plane's ceiling and fractured your skull. I'm genuinely not sure why the airline should be liable for your catastrophic injuries if the remaining passengers lack of same reasonably proves that your unwillingness to wear a belt caused your fracture.

neil0502 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Pete said:

"neil0502" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

2) maybe they should limit insurance medical
coverage for those who don't wear them??

or cycle at night with dark clothes or swim without a
life jacket or slice bagels without gloves or shower
standing up or climb trees or type without an ergo
keyboard or ski without body armor or eat meat or eat
too many carbs or too few carbs or drive a car (source
of 50% of all head injuries) How bout we just
eliminate insurance altogether? Pete

The slippery slope argument is always a ton of fun, but .
. . some risk factors . . . over years of study . . .
across huge sample sizes . . . are reasonably well
established.

Yes, they are. And AFAIK, the available and well established
data do NOT indicate a) that cycling is unusually dangerous,
or b) that helmets significantly reduce the danger.

Do you have data indicating otherwise? If so, you should
post it so it can be discussed.

In any case, it seems you are yet another cyclist who is -
weirdly enough - trying to disparage cycling. In fact,
you're going beyond merely slandering this beneficial
activity. You're actually inspiring people to take away the
legal rights of cyclists. Absolutely foolish.

I've trimmed your totally irrelevant fantasy story about
seatbelts in airplanes. Stick to the point.

-- Frank Krygowski

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Frank Krygowski
neil0502 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Pete said:

"neil0502" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

2) maybe they should limit insurance medical
coverage for those who don't wear them??

or cycle at night with dark clothes or swim without a
life jacket or slice bagels without gloves or shower
standing up or climb trees or type without an ergo
keyboard or ski without body armor or eat meat or eat
too many carbs or too few carbs or drive a car (source
of 50% of all head injuries) How bout we just
eliminate insurance altogether? Pete

The slippery slope argument is always a ton of fun, but .
. . some risk factors . . . over years of study . . .
across huge sample sizes . . . are reasonably well
established.

Yes, they are. And AFAIK, the available and well established
data do NOT indicate a) that cycling is unusually dangerous,
or b) that helmets significantly reduce the danger.

Do you have data indicating otherwise? If so, you should
post it so it can be discussed.

In any case, it seems you are yet another cyclist who is -
weirdly enough - trying to disparage cycling. In fact,
you're going beyond merely slandering this beneficial
activity. You're actually inspiring people to take away the
legal rights of cyclists. Absolutely foolish.

I've trimmed your totally irrelevant fantasy story about
seatbelts in airplanes. Stick to the point.

-- Frank Krygowski

No, Frank. I did nothing of the sort. As to stats, let's start here:

http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

Their site indicates that they are "Volunteer staff - Consumer-funded." If somebody shows me that they are a lobbyist group funded by Bell and Giro, I won't look there again.

Those who incur catastrophic medical injuries, with the associated catastrophic costs, increase insurance prices for all of us. That gives me (IMHO) some miniscule right to question . . . .

Disparage cycling? One day, when you have the time and I have the interest, I'm hoping you'll explain that one to me.

Take away the legal rights of cyclists?? I'm eating cereal right now, so I really don't have room for you to put words in my mouth, but thank you for trying.

Meanwhile, I'm pedaling about 200 miles/week, so let's get back to my perspective--not your erroneous perception of it: I have some difficulty understanding why people who ride in heavily trafficked areas--be they bicycle traffic, automotive traffic, or both--are so reluctant to wear helmets or use mirrors. I have--in good faith--attempted to get answers to these questions.

I'm looking for information here, and am perfectly willing to provide it when and where I can.

. . . now . . . back to my cereal . . . .

On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:02:41 GMT, neil0502
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

On takeoff, a tire blows out on the nose wheel of the
landing gear. All the passengers are bruised and sore from
the event, but you've flown into the plane's ceiling and
fractured your skull. I'm genuinely not sure why the
airline should be liable for your catastrophic injuries if
the remaining passengers lack of same reasonably proves
that your unwillingness to wear a belt caused your
fracture.

OK, so now provide an example where an increase in helmet
use has resulted in a reduction in the rate of serious and
fatal injuries to cyclists. Note key word "rate" - i.e. if
the injury number drops by 20% but the numbers cycling drop
by 35% or more (cf. Australia) the rate has increased.

If you have an example the British Government would like
to hear from you. They were forced to conclude that
there is none.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:02:41 GMT, neil0502
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

On takeoff, a tire blows out on the nose wheel of the
landing gear. All the passengers are bruised and sore from
the event, but you've flown into the plane's ceiling and
fractured your skull. I'm genuinely not sure why the
airline should be liable for your catastrophic injuries if
the remaining passengers lack of same reasonably proves
that your unwillingness to wear a belt caused your
fracture.

OK, so now provide an example where an increase in helmet
use has resulted in a reduction in the rate of serious and
fatal injuries to cyclists. Note key word "rate" - i.e. if
the injury number drops by 20% but the numbers cycling drop
by 35% or more (cf. Australia) the rate has increased.

If you have an example the British Government would like
to hear from you. They were forced to conclude that
there is none.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Just Zis Guy
OK, so now provide an example where an increase in helmet
use has resulted in a reduction in the rate of serious and
fatal injuries to cyclists. Note key word "rate" - i.e. if
the injury number drops by 20% but the numbers cycling drop
by 35% or more (cf. Australia) the rate has increased.

If you have an example the British Government would like
to hear from you. They were forced to conclude that
there is none.

Guy

Happy to exchange information, Guy, but what you're doing here doesn't strike me as exchange. Would you be so kind as to post a link from the British Government that shows that there is no correlation between helmet use and crash-related injuries?

Thanks much....

On Thu, 13 May 2004 23:48:08 GMT, neil0502
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Happy to exchange information, Guy, but what you're doing
here doesn't strike me as exchange. Would you be so kind as
to post a link from the British Government that shows that
there is no correlation between helmet use and crash-
related injuries?

It was accepted during the recent debate on a mandatory
helmet law (which was defeated, by the way). The claim was,
I think, made in an exchange of letters with a national
cycling organisation, I have asked for chapter and verse. It
is possibly from DfT Research Report 30, 2002, whch is
currently being revised to remove factual inaccuracies.

As to the concept of exchange, I am puzzled by the comment.
I have just spent a considerable amount of time combating a
helmet law in the UK which was promoted on the basis of
dodgy statistics, half-truths, distortion and exaggeration.
I learned a lot along the way, things like the precise
weaknesses with Thompson, Rivara and Thompson's original Snell-
funded study, and I am happy to share them with all comers.
I spent many hours analysing hospital admissions data, and
was able to reduce the claimed number of serious cycling
head injuries used in debate from tens of thousands to a
rather more accurate few hundreds annually. The claim of 50
child deaths was also found to be more than double the real
figure. The suggestion that this was due to under-reporting
(of child deaths?!) was quickly dispatched.

I was originally pro helmet and pro compulsion for children.
A review of the evidence from places where compulsion and
aggressive promtion have been tried was sufficient to
persuade me to change my mind.

Now the Irish handwringers are out for a law, using the
usual "it's not a fashion statement, it's a vital safety
measure" arguments. How come the vital safety measure was
never thought vital until Bell had a product to sell, I
wonder? How come the "vital safety measure" has never
resulted in a measurable reduciotn in cyclist injuries?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:44:42 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It was accepted during the recent debate on a mandatory
helmet law (which was defeated, by the way).

In a letter from David Jamieson (roads minister) to
Michael Jack, MP.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University