No Helmets Needed?

[[email protected]]

SMS wrote:
>
> 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.

> 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.

> 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

 

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.]
On 5 Jan 2006 12:19:15 -0800, NYC XYZ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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|
|/ \|

 

[[email protected]]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> 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

 

[[email protected]]

NYC XYZ wrote:
>
>
> 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!

>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

 

[SMS]

NYC XYZ wrote:

> 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.

 

[gds]

[email protected] wrote:
> 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.

 

[Mike Rice]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:53:50 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> This does not really follow unless you are suggesting that a high level
>>> of education makes one more vunerable to propaganda - which if the
>>> propaganda is in written form may be true
>>
>> 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.
>
>Many subjects are so simple that not much if any science is required to come
>to a sensible conclusion. When all else fails, rely on good old common
>sense. Also, case histories are not out of bounds either. So very many
>cyclists have stories to tell about how their helmets have saved their
>noggins.
>
>It stands to reason that some protection is better than no protection. Case
>closed!
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
>

Those noggins have been saved mainly from srapes, cuts, and bruises.
H*lm*ts are made to a laughably low standard.

While h*lm*ts should provide some protection from minor injuries, the
foil lined styro hats will not offer much real protection in the case
of a serious impact.

I have seen many lo-o-ong threads arguing the pros and cons and have
yet to see any real evidence in favor. Every reputable study I have
seen referenced show no change in head injury rates with increased
h*lm*t use.

There can be a case made for h*lm*ts actually increasing the level of
injury in some types of accidents due to increased rotational
injuries. I no longer believe h*lm*ts to be a strong positive, and
feel that we in the US have fallen for a flawed marketing campaign.

All that said, I almost alwasys wear one. I believe (maybe
incorrectly) that some drivers give me a little more respect when they
believe I am taking reasonable safety precautiions.

Indiana Mike

 

[Mike Rice]

On 5 Jan 2006 13:21:13 -0800, "gds" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> 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
>
>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.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Mike Rice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:53:50 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
[...]
>>Many subjects are so simple that not much if any science is required to
>>come
>>to a sensible conclusion. When all else fails, rely on good old common
>>sense. Also, case histories are not out of bounds either. So very many
>>cyclists have stories to tell about how their helmets have saved their
>>noggins.
>>
>>It stands to reason that some protection is better than no protection.
>>Case
>>closed!
[...]

> Those noggins have been saved mainly from scrapes, cuts, and bruises.
> H*lm*ts are made to a laughably low standard.
[...]

That is good enough for me! I do not want to have my noggin scraped, cut or
bruised.

Again, case closed!

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.

>> 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

 

[Edward Dolan]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> Folks who go cycling without wearing SOMETHING on their heads
>> look like the jerks and dorks that they are.
>
> Like these folks?
[...]

> 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.

 

[Hayvern]

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.

 

[[email protected]]

Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>
> 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.


> 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

 

[HH]

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

 

[Rich Clark]

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

> 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

 

[[email protected]]

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

> ... 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

 

[Peter Clinch]

SMS wrote:

> 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...

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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

 

[Peter Clinch]

NYC XYZ wrote:

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

 

[Peter Clinch]

NYC XYZ wrote:

> 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!

There is no conclusive evidence that helmets have reduced serious head
injuries in any population of cyclists. Cripples, paralyzed and brain
damaged all count as "serious" in my book.

> Which kinds are these? If I'm gonna wear a helmet, it might as well be
> the best.

Motorcycle helmets. You don't want to wear one on a bike...
The best ones generally available for cycling are Snell certified cycle
helmets (this is a tougher spec than EN1078). Again, don't expect them
to improve your odds against serious injury.

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/

 

[Roger Houston]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If you're going to make pronouncements about what people must wear, at
> least learn enough about the issue to avoid looking totally foolish.
>

Yes. With a lot of hard work and study, you can look partially foolish.
Like Frank.