No Helmets Needed?

SMS said:

It's a low level of education that makes people not understand the
difference between causation and correlation.

Most of the junk science regarding helmets relies on a disconnect with
logical thought. Invariably, the junk science (and not just as it
relates to bicycle helmets) ignores legitimate control-group studies,
and looks solely at whole population studies without taking into account
the myriad of other factors that can affect the whole population. These
studies are superficially impressive, including seemingly precise
statistical calculations. They appear "scientific" but they don't meet
the fundamental criteria for science, rather they try to look at various
variables, and create inferences that are not based on the data.

A statement such as "cycling injuries/deaths went up after a helmet law
was passed, so helmets are not necessary" shows a lack of understanding
of correlation versus causation that a more educated person would not
fall for. I.e. "I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more since I
found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one." I'm not
sure if this poster was being sarcastic and trolling, or if he really
has fallen for the junk science.

Well stated.

Rich

Quoted message said:

It's _possible_ that's it, but I'm not so sure.

I ran a good-sized century ride for seven or eight years. We were LAB
sanctioned and insured. (We even won a LAB award.) We did _not_
require helmets, and we were not told to do so.

That was in the 1990s. To see if things changed, I poked around the
LAB website. Here's the waiver form they want clubs to use for their
organized rides:

http://www.bikeleague.org/members/sample_waiver.pdf

Search for "helmet." You'll find nothing. No requirements.

Maybe it also protects the clubs, etc., from negligence lawsuits, you
think? An incredible case of chutzpah they're assuming, but then
again, you really never do know -- say the families decide to sue, even
if the fatality had signed all kinds of releases.

Quoted message said:

I think the helmet requirements of most bike clubs are simply more of
the same nonsense we see elsewhere. They're generated by true
believers who have never looked into the issue beyond, say, "Safe Kids"
promotional blurbs, and who smugly justify their odd costumes based on
those blurbs.

My suspicions precisely, though I also have to agree that they "can't
hurt."

But given my funny-shaped head -- old Army "battle buddies" (that's an
official term, no joke!) used to say that it looked like someone hit me
in the back of the head...with an anvil! -- I haven't come across a
helmet yet which adjusts properly to be effective as prescribed.

Quoted message said:

- Frank Krygowski

Edward Dolan said:

Pete has fallen on his head too many times and is now as screwed up as his
signature. Folks who go cycling without wearing SOMETHING on their heads
look like the jerks and dorks that they are. Since you have to wear
something on your head, it might as well be a helmet. And who knows, it
might just save your life some day.

Can't hurt, I know.

So, back to my oddly-shaped head: what do you do for that? I have a
flat back of the head, and these helmets don't fit in the manner
they're supposed to in order to be effective.

I dunno. I'll just wear them Kraut helmets like the Hell's Angels.

Quoted message said:

Listen to old Pete here and you will end up posting a signature like he does
and babbling about being a Medical Physics IT Officer. There is just no way
this idiot can possibly be connected with a university. I strongly suspect
he is the janitor there and is just using their computer for some free
Internet access.

Well, there definitely is such a thing as Medical Physics in health
care, and Officer is an offical title, though I don't recall the IT
part (could it really just be Info Tech?).

Quoted message said:

Do any of us here really need to know his phone number (with extension no
less) and his fax number? If he wants to tell us that he is from Dundee,
Scotland, that is fine and all we would ever have to know about him. But he
is crazy - and you listen to him at your peril.

Hmm...reminds me of the Cretan Paradox...LOL!

Quoted message said:

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

So what else do you like to do in your spare time?

Ack! Just set your phasers on "stun," okay?

Ken M said:

NO NO NO not another helmet thread!

Ken
Maybe we can follow up with a chain cleaning one.
--
[T]he bicycle is the most efficient machine ever created: Converting
calories into gas, a bicycle gets the equivalent of three thousand miles
per gallon. ~Bill Strickland, The Quotable Cyclist

Homepage: http://kcm-home.tripod.com/

SMS said:

Most of the junk science regarding helmets relies on a disconnect with
logical thought. Invariably, the junk science (and not just as it
relates to bicycle helmets) ignores legitimate control-group studies,

Baloney - assuming you mean, as you usually do, the people using "junk
science" are those who disagree with the Thompson & Rivara methods that
predicted 85% benefit. Most of the people who _disagree_ with studies
like T&R have looked into their methods and data far more deeply than
those who agree with the study!

How many pro-helmet people realize that T&R's "case" and "control"
groups were different in many important ways beyond the presence of a
helmet? How many people realize that the presentations to T&R's ER had
a much higher percentage helmet wearing than the general population
(meaning the people with helmets were _more_ likely to show up in the
ER)? How many people realize that T&R's calculation methods also
"prove" that helmets prevent over 70% of serious leg injuries?

And most of all, how do those people explain the fact that the fantasy
protection figure of 85% has never, not once, been approached in any
jurisdiction that got lots of cyclists to wear helmets?

There is a lot of "ignoring" going on, but it's not by the people you
think.

Quoted message said:

and looks solely at whole population studies without taking into account
the myriad of other factors that can affect the whole population.

You have yet to explain how (after a mandatory helmet law) helmet
wearing can suddenly increase from 30% or less to over 70%, with no
detectable benefit in head injuries per rider, unless the helmets are
not working. Pretending "other factors" coincidentally wiped out all
the helmet benefit in the very same year of the law seems delusional at
best.

Quoted message said:

A statement such as "cycling injuries/deaths went up after a helmet law
was passed, so helmets are not necessary" shows a lack of understanding
of correlation versus causation that a more educated person would not
fall for.

I've waited for years for your explanations to counter the points I
made above. You've never given them. Perhaps it's because you "lack
understanding" of those points?

- Frank Krygowski

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.]

NYC XYZ said:

My suspicions precisely, though I also have to agree that they "can't
hurt."

Then I suspect you haven't read a great deal of the research.

There are reasonably foreseeable mechanisms by which they could hurt
(if, by that, you mean make the net injury in a given incident more
serious than were the party involved not wearing a helmet). There are
a number of easily foreseeable mechanisms by which they could make
average net injury per mile cycled worse.

Some of the statistical evidence suggests that they do (on average)
'hurt'. Quite a bit of the statistical evidence suggests they 'hurt'
when compulsion is introduced.

Or they might indeed not hurt, but it's not valid to say that they
can't help but be better than not wearing a helmet.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Edward Dolan said:

Folks who go cycling without wearing SOMETHING on their heads
look like the jerks and dorks that they are.

Like these folks?

http://home-1.tiscali.nl/~edwinsel/misc_monuments.htm

http://oregonfuture.oregonstate.edu/gallery/29.html

http://www.ron-karpinski.com/ron-bio/hobby-bicycling.htm

http://www.travelexcel.ca/pages/main_europeanbicycling.html

http://tinyurl.com/b9prr

How _dare_ they actually ride a bike without wearing the American sport
cylcists' "full mating plumage"??

Admittedly, there's room for differences in aesthetic taste. But to
me, the guys who think they look good with a day-glo styrofoam squid
strapped to their head are generally a lot dorkier.

I admit, I don't know anything about how Edward Dolan looks. But we
have evidence that he's damned intolerant, and more than a little
ignorant.

- Frank Krygowski

NYC XYZ said:

Hell, forget about killed -- I'd always maintained that at least then
my problems would be over! I'm worried about crippled, as in paralyzed
or brain-impaired!

Quoted message said:

From riding a bicycle? Forget about it.

Before Bell had a commercial product to sell, and began (through Snell
and Safe Kids) the big propaganda attack, nobody associated bicycling
with serious head injury. Nobody worried about it because it
essentially never happened.

And indeed, if you dig for comparative data, you'll find that cycling
is roughly 1% of the serious head injury problem. Riding in motor
vehicles is about 50% of the problem. Falling around your own home is
roughly 40% of the problem.

And it's not just because people don't cycle much. On a per-hour
basis, walking anywhere near traffic has more serious head injuries per
hour than cycling. Riding inside cars is roughly equal to cycling in
serious head injuries per hour.

Helmet manufacturers, their trade associations, and the "safety"
societies they donate big money to (like, for example, Safe Kids Inc.)
have falsely portrayed ordinary cycling as a tremendous source of
serious head injuries. Don't fall for it.

- Frank Krygowski

NYC XYZ said:

Maybe it also protects the clubs, etc., from negligence lawsuits, you
think? An incredible case of chutzpah they're assuming, but then
again, you really never do know -- say the families decide to sue, even
if the fatality had signed all kinds of releases.

It protects the officers of the club, it protects the ride leader, and
in the case of our club protected the city that allowed us to use a
meeting room, on the condition we had liability insurance. IIRC, we
changed to the insurance from LAW because it was much cheaper than
buying insurance on our own from an agent. This was sometime in the
1980's, when the liability insurance rates for allegedly dangerous
activities went up. I remember the local Sierra Club Rock Climbing
activity section losing insurance coverage through the Sierra Club, and
having to make the club into a group that got together for meetings and
parties, with all activities done not as official activities.

Prior to the insurance company making the decision on compulsory helmets
for the club, we had periodic debates regarding helmets. On one side,
were the ride leaders, including myself, that thought that it should be
a decision of the ride leader whether or not to require helmets, while
on the other side we had the do-gooders that wanted to pass more rules
to make everything safe for everybody.

Quoted message said:

And indeed, if you dig for comparative data, you'll find that cycling
is roughly 1% of the serious head injury problem. Riding in motor
vehicles is about 50% of the problem. Falling around your own home is
roughly 40% of the problem.

Frank is this the current data? If so can you provide the source?

And don't you see a bit of a logical problem with the data if it is
current? Since one can safely assume that the % of cyclists that wear
helmets is much higher than the % of motorists or folks hanging out at
home one possible interpretation of such data would be that helmets
were successfull in yielding an extremely low serious head injury rate.
I'm not claiming that is so, just suggesting a possible interpretation
frrom the snippet you present.

And of course the rates would have to be normalized for the amount of
time etc in each activity. I think we can all agree that on average the
average person spends more time in the house than riding a bike and
certainly the vehicle miles per person and/or vehicle hours per person
are highr than similar rates for cycling.

gds said:

Quoted message said:

And indeed, if you dig for comparative data, you'll find that cycling
is roughly 1% of the serious head injury problem. Riding in motor
vehicles is about 50% of the problem. Falling around your own home is
roughly 40% of the problem.

Frank is this the current data? If so can you provide the source?

And don't you see a bit of a logical problem with the data if it is
current? Since one can safely assume that the % of cyclists that wear
helmets is much higher than the % of motorists or folks hanging out at
home one possible interpretation of such data would be that helmets
were successfull in yielding an extremely low serious head injury rate.
I'm not claiming that is so, just suggesting a possible interpretation
frrom the snippet you present.

The problem with this interpretation is that the head injury rate has
remained the same, percentage-wize, regardless of h*lm*t use or lack
thereof in every reputable study I've seen. When h*lm*t use has
increased, bicycling has remained just as safe as it was before.

Outstanding reason to wear foil lined styro hats, if you ask me '-)

Indiana Mike

Indiana Mike

Quoted message said:

And of course the rates would have to be normalized for the amount of
time etc in each activity. I think we can all agree that on average the
average person spends more time in the house than riding a bike and
certainly the vehicle miles per person and/or vehicle hours per person
are highr than similar rates for cycling.

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

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

Pete has fallen on his head too many times and is now as screwed up as
his
signature. Folks who go cycling without wearing SOMETHING on their heads
look like the jerks and dorks that they are. Since you have to wear
something on your head, it might as well be a helmet. And who knows, it
might just save your life some day.

Can't hurt, I know.

So, back to my oddly-shaped head: what do you do for that? I have a
flat back of the head, and these helmets don't fit in the manner
they're supposed to in order to be effective.

I dunno. I'll just wear them Kraut helmets like the Hell's Angels.

I like to wear a horse riding kind of helmet for my recumbent cycling. They
look sharp, you can fit them perfectly and they are not expensive. Most bike
helmets these days are for racers and look just awful. Esthetics count after
all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Listen to old Pete here and you will end up posting a signature like he
does
and babbling about being a Medical Physics IT Officer. There is just no
way
this idiot can possibly be connected with a university. I strongly
suspect
he is the janitor there and is just using their computer for some free
Internet access.

Well, there definitely is such a thing as Medical Physics in health
care, and Officer is an offical title, though I don't recall the IT
part (could it really just be Info Tech?).

Yeah, but who cares - and who needs to know any of this? It has nothing to
do with recumbents and/or cycling. He is doing nothing but crowing about
himself. Furthermore, he is not Great like I am. See my signature to know
who I am.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

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

Quoted message said:

Edward Dolan said:

Folks who go cycling without wearing SOMETHING on their heads
look like the jerks and dorks that they are.

Like these folks?

[...]

Quoted message said:

Admittedly, there's room for differences in aesthetic taste. But to
me, the guys who think they look good with a day-glo styrofoam squid
strapped to their head are generally a lot dorkier.

I admit, I don't know anything about how Edward Dolan looks. But we
have evidence that he's damned intolerant, and more than a little
ignorant.

I gave up on the esthetics of bike helmets years ago. They are designed with
racers in mind, not tourists like myself.

I like to wear the kind of helmets that are designed for horse riders. I
think they look quite elegant, they fit nicely and they are not expensive.
What is not to like about them? However, I think they will only work for
recumbent cyclists, not upright cyclists.

I maintain that you have to wear something on your head when you go cycling.
Therefore, it might as well be some kind of helmet.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. Yes, I am intolerant of the kind of ignorance that is daily displayed on
Usenet.

I have a nice 3 inch scar in my forehead from a bicycle crash in 1977.
This scar would have been avoided had I been wearing a helmet. Yeah, I
look like a dork, but 25 stitches in my forehead was not a lot of fun
either.

Edward Dolan said:

I maintain that you have to wear something on your head when you go cycling.
Therefore, it might as well be some kind of helmet.

Wait - did you not examine the links I posted? There are many people
pictured who did were _not_ wearing anything on their heads when
cycling. That's proof that you _don't_ have to.

Quoted message said:

PS. Yes, I am intolerant of the kind of ignorance that is daily displayed on
Usenet.

Then why contribute to it?

If you're going to make pronouncements about what people must wear, at
least learn enough about the issue to avoid looking totally foolish.

- Frank Krygowski

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

Quoted message said:

And indeed, if you dig for comparative data, you'll find that cycling
is roughly 1% of the serious head injury problem. Riding in motor
vehicles is about 50% of the problem. Falling around your own home is
roughly 40% of the problem.

<snip snip snip>

Could it be that cycling results in such a low percentage of head injuries
because most localities mandate the wearing of helmets? And the higher
percentage of head injuries for accidents in cars and homes could be due to
helmets never being worn when in those situations? Seems to make as much
sense to me as anything else. On the other hand I generally don't read
helmet threads (they make my hair hurt) so I don't know the tons of
statistics, lies, and damned lies that are batted about.

HH (who once visited an emergency room to have a bunch of gravel picked out
of his head because he wasn't wearing a helmet)

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

Quoted message said:

Could it be that cycling results in such a low percentage of head injuries
because most localities mandate the wearing of helmets?

"Most"?

According to http://www.bhsi.org/mandator.htm the only US cities of any size
with mandatory adult helmet laws are Dallas and a bunch of places in
Washington State.

Maybe you should compare statistics between those cities and other
municipalities of the same size and climate.

RichC

HH said:

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

Quoted message said:

And indeed, if you dig for comparative data, you'll find that cycling
is roughly 1% of the serious head injury problem. Riding in motor
vehicles is about 50% of the problem. Falling around your own home is
roughly 40% of the problem.

<snip snip snip>

Could it be that cycling results in such a low percentage of head injuries
because most localities mandate the wearing of helmets?

No, for the simple reasons that most localities do NOT mandate the
wearing of helmets. In fact, except for Australia and New Zealand,
very few do except for kids. And in the US, even the laws for kids are
generally ignored.

Quoted message said:

... On the other hand I generally don't read
helmet threads (they make my hair hurt) so I don't know the tons of
statistics, lies, and damned lies that are batted about.

Nor the accurate data, obviously.

- Frank Krygowski

SMS said:

Most of the junk science regarding helmets relies on a disconnect with
logical thought. Invariably, the junk science (and not just as it
relates to bicycle helmets) ignores legitimate control-group studies

Like the ones that tell us that various discredited "healthcare"
procedures are a Really Good Idea...

Quoted message said:

and looks solely at whole population studies without taking into account
the myriad of other factors that can affect the whole population.

It looks solely there because that's where you'll find the best
controlled data which is hit by the exact same factors. And anywhere
you do this, despite differences in myriads of other factors between the
different national population data sets, no positive change is seen is
serious head injuries among helmet wearing cyclists.

Quoted message said:

studies are superficially impressive, including seemingly precise
statistical calculations. They appear "scientific" but they don't meet
the fundamental criteria for science, rather they try to look at various
variables, and create inferences that are not based on the data.

It's very straightforward science. There is no positive change so we
suspect no positive effect. OTOH the "legitimate control-group studies"
can usually be laughed out of court for the shocking attempts at science
they represent, yet people are still quoting them.

Quoted message said:

A statement such as "cycling injuries/deaths went up after a helmet law
was passed, so helmets are not necessary" shows a lack of understanding
of correlation versus causation that a more educated person would not
fall for.

Quite so, but that's a straw man because nobody serious about a helmet
sceptic position with a Clue is actually /saying/ such a thing.

Quoted message said:

I.e. "I must say I've enjoyed my cycling a lot more since I
found out how necessary they aren't and stopped wearing one."

Is not saying what you suggest above at all. I used to consider they
were necessary, and always wore one. I have since changed my mind and
no longer wear one on the road. They are clearly /not/ necessary or
cycling would not have been possible. I enjoy my cycling now more than
when I always wore a helmet. These are all simple statements of fact
and nothing to do with correlation and causation.

Quoted message said:

I'm not
sure if this poster was being sarcastic and trolling, or if he really
has fallen for the junk science.

You have fallen into the trap of reading more into a simple sentence
than was there in the first place. I stated some simple facts and you
tried to twist them into "junk science" for the purpose of making a
straw man.

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/

NYC XYZ said:

Can't hurt, I know.

Actually, it can. A head with a helmet is bigger and heavier than one
without so more likely to get a head hit at all, and being bigger it
provides the extra leverage to add some interesting rotational leverage
to your neck and spine.

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/