Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

Quoted message said:

miles todd said:

On 2006-05-23 02:03:27 -0700, Tony Raven <[email hidden]> said:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

By the way, do you think Miles would have tried it if he hadn't been
wearing a helmet? ...

No, likely I wouldn't. In fact, if I had realized I'd forgotten my
helmet at the start of the ride, I would simply have not ridden at all.

Those of us that know about risk compensation aren't surprised, of
course. And we thank you for the evidence.

- Frank Krygowski

Your order of causation is skewed. I do not take risks because I
believe my helmet would save from harm. I take risks despite knowing
full well the consequences. I wear my helmet to ameliorate the damage
that is possibly going to occur as a result of these risks. If no one
had ever invented helmets, I would still ride my bike. Chances are it
would have been the death of me, though... and it may be yet.

miles

miles todd said:

Quoted message said:

miles todd said:

On 2006-05-23 02:03:27 -0700, Tony Raven <[email hidden]> said:
<snip>
>
> By the way, do you think Miles would have tried it if he hadn't been
> wearing a helmet? ...
>

No, likely I wouldn't. In fact, if I had realized I'd forgotten my
helmet at the start of the ride, I would simply have not ridden at all.

Those of us that know about risk compensation aren't surprised, of
course. And we thank you for the evidence.

- Frank Krygowski

Your order of causation is skewed. I do not take risks because I
believe my helmet would save from harm. I take risks despite knowing
full well the consequences. I wear my helmet to ameliorate the damage
that is possibly going to occur as a result of these risks. If no one
had ever invented helmets, I would still ride my bike. Chances are it
would have been the death of me, though... and it may be yet.

Hmm. Well, you say you wear your helmet to ameliorate the effect of
risks - but still, you said you wouldn't incur the risks without the
helmet. The helmet may not be the direct cause of taking the risks,
but it apparently is a necessary condition. The difference, if any, is
certainly a fine point.

The reason this comes up is that (as discussed upthread, or in other
current threads) when entire populations take up bike helmet wearing
(usually due to mandatory helmet laws) there is no measured benefit per
remaining rider. Some of us wonder about the reasons for the lack of
benefit.

Common theories are these:

1) Helmets are not sufficiently protective to reduce the severity of
the bulk of those head impacts that actually cause significant harm.
(This is plausible, once you examine the certification standards for
bike helmets.)

2) Helmets protect against certain linear impacts, but the larger size
of the helmet incurs more glancing impacts that impart rotational
acceleration to the brain; and rotational accelerations have been shown
to cause more significant brain injuries than linear impacts.

3) Helmets protect to a degree, but cyclists overestimate their
protectiveness and (perhaps unconsciously) assume greater levels of
risk, which cancel the helmet benefit.

4) Or some combination of the above.

Occasionally, we get someone who says "Cyclists would never
risk-compensate due to helmets, even though it's been proven for other
'safety' measures." Statements like yours prove that false.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Hmm. Well, you say you wear your helmet to ameliorate the effect of
risks - but still, you said you wouldn't incur the risks without the
helmet. The helmet may not be the direct cause of taking the risks,
but it apparently is a necessary condition. The difference, if any, is
certainly a fine point.

The reason this comes up is that (as discussed upthread, or in other
current threads) when entire populations take up bike helmet wearing
(usually due to mandatory helmet laws) there is no measured benefit per
remaining rider. Some of us wonder about the reasons for the lack of
benefit.

Common theories are these:

1) Helmets are not sufficiently protective to reduce the severity of
the bulk of those head impacts that actually cause significant harm.
(This is plausible, once you examine the certification standards for
bike helmets.)

2) Helmets protect against certain linear impacts, but the larger size
of the helmet incurs more glancing impacts that impart rotational
acceleration to the brain; and rotational accelerations have been shown
to cause more significant brain injuries than linear impacts.

3) Helmets protect to a degree, but cyclists overestimate their
protectiveness and (perhaps unconsciously) assume greater levels of
risk, which cancel the helmet benefit.

4) Or some combination of the above.

Occasionally, we get someone who says "Cyclists would never
risk-compensate due to helmets, even though it's been proven for other
'safety' measures." Statements like yours prove that false.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I would have to agree that there are many likely injuries that
won't be reduced by helmet usage. I would dispute that they don't help
in the majority of potentially severe accidents, though. I am also
unconvinced that there are any (statistically speaking) head injuries
actually caused by a properly fitted helmet. Perhaps the rotational
acceleration you mention might have been more of a concern when we all
wore lycra-covered styrofoam helmets far larger than the current norm.
However, now most helmets really aren't physically very large in
relation to the contained head. Now, however, virtually all helmets
have some sort of plastic skin which is far more likely to "skip"
across the asphalt than a bare head would, thus reducing he rotational
force danger.

Helmets (along with other protective gear) does embolden riders. I
think that to argue otherwise would invalidate my own personal
experience- I certainly become more confident to try difficult sections
when I am wearing my full-face helmet and body armor. After all, that
is what protective gear is about- to reduce the penalty for failure.
Does this mean riders won't try difficult moves without helmets?
Certainly not. They would still contest the field sprint, or still
ride through the rock garden.

We all risk-compensate virtually every moment of our lives. It is a
simple survival mechanism. One simple method of compensating for risk
is to reduce the impact of that risk- hence, helmets.

I guess I am done arguing here. All I have to say boils down to this:
Cycling is an inherently risky behavior. The risks can be abated
somewhat by protective gear. I choose to wear a helmet because I value
my head. It is the one part of my body I can least live without.

On another note, the Hurt Report
http://www.clarity.net/~adam/hurt-report.html is worth a read. Even
though it was written about motocycle crashes, a lot of the discussion
pertains to bicycles as well.

miles

miles todd said:

relation to the contained head. Now, however, virtually all helmets
have some sort of plastic skin which is far more likely to "skip" across
the asphalt than a bare head would,

This statement is demonstrably false; try dragging your head (gently!
slowly!) across the asphalt, and you will find that the skin slides (and
hair, where applicable, is even better at being slippery). Now try with
a helmet, at varying angles of attack; you will find that it catches and
skips, particularly when the longer peaks and rear-peaks and vents are
the contact points.

Quoted message said:

Cycling is an inherently risky behavior.

No, it's not. /some forms/ of cycling are, but taken as a whole, it
is safer than walking, and I doubt anyone would describe walking as
'inherently risky'.

Quoted message said:

The risks can be abated
somewhat by protective gear.

The consequences can, yes.

Quoted message said:

I choose to wear a helmet because I value
my head.

I choose not to for the same reason (amongst others), backed up by
rather a lot of population-level studies. It is certainly true that if
I was doing the sort of cycling shown in your crash video, I would
almost certainly wear a helmet; I am not skilled enough to ride those
sorts of paths without coming a cropper, and a helmet may protect my
head from lacerations and mild concussion, maybe even a fractured skull
in the event of a spill. But I'm not deluding myself that it would
prevent serious head injury, and particularly not in collisions
involving motor vehicles or high speed cycling.

Quoted message said:

http://www.clarity.net/~adam/hurt-report.html is worth a read.

Interesting, but of limited relevance in this context; motorcycle
helmets are entirely different beasts to bicycle helmets.

R.

Richard said:

miles todd wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cycling is an inherently risky behavior.

No, it's not. /some forms/ of cycling are, but taken as a whole, it
is safer than walking, and I doubt anyone would describe walking as
'inherently risky'.

Maybe people who've been run over by cars would... It /is/ potentially
lethal, as is driving, being a passenger etc. etc.
But there isn't any reason for typical A to B cycling to be in
/particular/ fear of one's life, even though there's certainly a degree
of danger. Much like driving a car, even though sport drivers wear
helmets and fireproof suits.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The risks can be abated
somewhat by protective gear.

They can be more effectively abated through things like training and
good roadcraft, which helps you not have an accident in the first place.
A better solution than a piece of armour with only partial coverage,
with no proven track record of abating serious injuries, and indeed not
designed for the sort of impacts likely to cause them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I choose to wear a helmet because I value my head.

This implies that 99.9% of Dutch cyclists /don't/ value theirs. I think
that's rather a silly suggestion.

It also suggests that if you follow your own logic you'll also wear a
helmet for other activities that could result in a fatal head injury.
Driving, being a vehicle passenger, being a pedestrian and especially
using stairs should be included. Are they?

Quoted message said:

I choose not to for the same reason (amongst others), backed up by
rather a lot of population-level studies.

I choose not to because if you look at the numbers they're basically
irrelevant for the most part. I value my head on a bike just as much as
I value it in the car or on the sidewalk or coming down the stairs. I
use the same basic head protection in each case.

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/

"miles todd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:2006052323555822503%milestodd@gmailcom...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I guess I am done arguing here. All I have to say boils down to this:
Cycling is an inherently risky behavior.

So (to a very similar amount) is showering or crossing a downtown street.
Do you wear a helmet while doing those things?

On Wed, 24 May 2006 06:56:02 GMT, miles todd <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Cycling is an inherently risky behavior.

That's why some people, including me, object so strongly to helmet
zealottry. The statement above is wrong. There is safe cycling and
unsafe cycling and all sorts of things in the middle. Yes, in any
form of cycling there is a remote change of an accident, but that is
true of many activities in life -- walking, eating, riding in a car,
siting outside, etc, etc.

To not recognize that, and to highlight cycling as especially risky,
is just wrong. It's actually anti-cycling. It scares people off
cycling and also can detract attention away from more effective ways
to deal some actual risks in the sport -- either in rider behaviour or
road design or the behaviour of other road users.

Technical mountain biking down boulders is perhaps inherently risky (I
don't have any experience with that but will trust your judgement)>
There are plenty of riding situations that members of this group are
in that are not especially risky at all.

Quoted message said:

The risks can be abated
somewhat by protective gear.

Quoted message said:

I choose to wear a helmet because I value
my head.

This is where the the name calling should begin. It sounds like
you're saying if someone doesn't wear a helmet they don't value their
head. If that's where your logic goes, then you're a jackass.

Quoted message said:

It is the one part of my body I can least live without.

Right. Severe spinal injuries still allow you to live.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Wed, 24 May 2006 09:52:22 +0100, Richard <[email hidden]>
wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

But I'm not deluding myself that it would
prevent serious head injury, and particularly not in collisions
involving motor vehicles or high speed cycling.

Quoted message said:

http://www.clarity.net/~adam/hurt-report.html is worth a read.

Interesting, but of limited relevance in this context; motorcycle
helmets are entirely different beasts to bicycle helmets.

R.

Dear Richard,

For anyone interested in another view of the motorcycle side of
things, here are some highlights from a different study:

1. Helmets are shown to have no statistically significant effect on
the probability of a fatality given that a motorcycle accident has
occurred. This means that based on standard statistical tests we
cannot reject the claim that helmets do not affect the probability
that a rider will survive a motorcycle accident.

5. It is found that helmets have a statistically significant effect in
reducing head injury severity. We can reject the hypothesis that
helmets have no effect on head injuries in favor of the claim that
they reduce head injuries.

6. It is shown that past a critical impact velocity to the helmet
(approximately 13 mph), helmet use has a statistically significant
effect which increases the severity of neck injuries. Thus we reject
the claim that, helmets have no effect on neck injuries in favor of
the claim that, past a critical impact speed, they exacerbate neck
injuries.

7. As a result of (5) and (6), we establish that a tradeoff between
head and neck injuries confronts a potential helmet user. Past a
critical impact speed to the helmet (13 mph), which is likely to occur
in real life accident situations helmet use reduces the severity of
head injuries at the expense of increasing the severity of neck
injuries.

http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/goldstein/goldstein.html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[email hidden] wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

For anyone interested in another view of the motorcycle side of
things, here are some highlights from a different study:

1. Helmets are shown to have no statistically significant effect on
the probability of a fatality given that a motorcycle accident has
occurred. This means that based on standard statistical tests we
cannot reject the claim that helmets do not affect the probability
that a rider will survive a motorcycle accident.

What happened to 2, 3, & 4?

Quoted message said:

5. It is found that helmets have a statistically significant effect in
reducing head injury severity. We can reject the hypothesis that
helmets have no effect on head injuries in favor of the claim that
they reduce head injuries.

6. It is shown that past a critical impact velocity to the helmet
(approximately 13 mph), helmet use has a statistically significant
effect which increases the severity of neck injuries. Thus we reject
the claim that, helmets have no effect on neck injuries in favor of
the claim that, past a critical impact speed, they exacerbate neck
injuries.

7. As a result of (5) and (6), we establish that a tradeoff between
head and neck injuries confronts a potential helmet user. Past a
critical impact speed to the helmet (13 mph), which is likely to occur
in real life accident situations helmet use reduces the severity of
head injuries at the expense of increasing the severity of neck
injuries.

http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/goldstein/goldstein.html

Carl,

FWIW, my old man used to make motorcycle crash helmets, though he
refused to sell them in the USA because you lot are a litigious bunch.
He always maintained that if you hit a wall head on at 30mph, there was
no way a helmet would stop your brain getting scrambled. On the other
hand I have seen the results first hand of a fall at racing speeds. One
side of the lid was perfect, the other scraped down to the foam. This
sort of sliding injury is what they are primarily designed for. It is
also why you should not put any stickers or anything on them as this
could initiate twisting and cause rotational injuries.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

You guys got something against spam? (Vriess, in _Alien 4_)

Quoted message said:

Again, one of the fundamental problems for those interested in this
issue is to explain the apparent lack of benefit when the very best
experiments are performed. And those are not dry lab experiments
(like the simple certification tests) nor case-control tests with a
couple hundred self-selected participants. They are studies of large
populations where helmet use was made to suddenly jump tremendously,
just like many helmet proponents want. Those studies show no
corresponding drop in serious head injury rates.

Because people lie.

Quoted message said:

It's a serious question, because most helmet promotion promises
terrific gains in public safety. When the helmets arrive in force but
the gains don't, one has to ask why.

Because people lie.

Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

Again, one of the fundamental problems for those interested in this
issue is to explain the apparent lack of benefit when the very best
experiments are performed. And those are not dry lab experiments
(like the simple certification tests) nor case-control tests with a
couple hundred self-selected participants. They are studies of large
populations where helmet use was made to suddenly jump tremendously,
just like many helmet proponents want. Those studies show no
corresponding drop in serious head injury rates.

Because people lie.

Quoted message said:

It's a serious question, because most helmet promotion promises
terrific gains in public safety. When the helmets arrive in force but
the gains don't, one has to ask why.

Because people lie.

It must be very relaxing to live in such a simple universe!

Do send us postcards from time to time, won't you? Address them to
"The Real World."

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

Again, one of the fundamental problems for those interested in this
issue is to explain the apparent lack of benefit when the very best
experiments are performed. And those are not dry lab experiments
(like the simple certification tests) nor case-control tests with a
couple hundred self-selected participants. They are studies of
large populations where helmet use was made to suddenly jump
tremendously, just like many helmet proponents want. Those studies
show no corresponding drop in serious head injury rates.

Because people lie.

Quoted message said:

It's a serious question, because most helmet promotion promises
terrific gains in public safety. When the helmets arrive in force
but the gains don't, one has to ask why.

Because people lie.

It must be very relaxing to live in such a simple universe!

Do send us postcards from time to time, won't you? Address them to
"The Real World."

You can thank one of your own for pointing this out, Frank. He just sort of
casually remarked that people in ERs (and the British equivalent) often LIE
to avoid being lectured by busy-body medical personnel.

Well guess what? Add in the authorities, insurance companies and nagging
spouses, and there are /many/ reasons why people do in fact lie.
(Conversely, does anyone who was helmeted lie and say they weren't???)

And you don't think this could throw off the validity of your precious
statistics at least a little?

Do you buy that "seven times more likely to hit your head helmeted versus
non-helmeted" figure? That doesn't seem just a /tad/ far-fetched??? Even
to you???

Must be nice to just buy everything at face value. Why bother with pesky
skepticism...

Don Whybrow said:

What happened to 2, 3, & 4?

Carl omitted them as they do not relate directly to helmets. You can
read them if you follow the link he provided.

--
Dave...

Richard said:

miles todd said:

relation to the contained head. Now, however, virtually all helmets
have some sort of plastic skin which is far more likely to "skip" across
the asphalt than a bare head would,

This statement is dem onstrably false; try dragging your head (gently!
slowly!) across the asphalt, and you will find that the skin slides (and
hair, where applicable, is even better at being slippery). Now try with
a helmet, at varying angles of attack; you will fin d that it catches and
skips, particularly when the longer peaks and rear-peaks and vents are
the contact points.

Worse, on all the "modern" helmets I have seen, including Bell, the
microshell is only from the crown to part way down the sides. The last
parts are still exposed soft shell. And the back is either pointy or
squared off.
h

Sorni said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It must be very relaxing to live in such a simple universe!

Do send us postcards from time to time, won't you? Address them to
"The Real World."

You can thank one of your own for pointing this out, Frank. He just sort of
casually remarked that people in ERs (and the British equivalent) often LIE
to avoid being lectured by busy-body medical personnel.

That could certainly skew hospital-based studies but how could it
affect large population ones?

--
Dave...

dkahn400 said:

Don Whybrow said:

What happened to 2, 3, & 4?

Carl omitted them as they do not relate directly to helmets. You can
read them if you follow the link he provided.

Oops, sorry, I was in Sorni mode.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"I have come to the frightening conclusion that I am the
decisive element. It is my personal approach that creates the
climate. It is my daily mood that makes the weather. I possess
tremendous power to make life miserable or joyous. I can be a
tool of torture, or an instrument of inspiration, I can
humiliate or humor, hurt or heal. In all situations, it is my
response that decides whether a crises is escalated or de-
escalated, and a person is humanized or de-humanized. If we
treat people as they are, we make them worse. If we treat
people as they ought to be, we help them become what they are
capable of becoming." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Don Whybrow said:

dkahn400 said:

Don Whybrow said:

What happened to 2, 3, & 4?

Carl omitted them as they do not relate directly to helmets. You can
read them if you follow the link he provided.

Oops, sorry, I was in Sorni mode.

Dear Don and Dave,

Good question, better answer, graceful oops--looks just like a
newsgroup, only more good-natured and sensible!

Anyway, points 2-3-4 hinted darkly that getting drunk and hitting
things at higher speeds seemed to be popular among dead motorcyclists:

"2. The major determinants of fatality are the rider's crash speed
(kinetic energy) and blood alcohol level."

"3. For the average rider involved in the average accident, it is
found that the probability of death increases from 2.1% to 11.3% when
the rider's blood alcohol level increases from 0.0 to 0.1 (from sober
to legally intoxicated in most states)."

"4. In the same vein, an increase in the crash speed from 40 to 60 mph
increases the probability of death from 7.1% to 36.3%."

http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/goldstein/goldstein.html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Don Whybrow said:

dkahn400 said:

Don Whybrow said:

What happened to 2, 3, & 4?

Carl omitted them as they do not relate directly to helmets. You can
read them if you follow the link he provided.

Oops, sorry, I was in Sorni mode.

Ah, let's see. Someone mentions a reference and then proceeds to write or
paste the relevant points from that reference to make their case.

Someone /else/ (you) asks about the missing bits, and you're told why they
weren't included (and wehre to find them) and that's "Sorni mode" to you.

Sorni mode would be to assume the author (in this case Carl) included what
was relevant to make his point; or if I thought he was trying to hide
something, to go look so I could "bust him" for it.

You were too oblivious to do the former; and too lazy to do the latter.

I'd call that "Whybrow Mode".

Sorni said:

Don Whybrow said:

Oops, sorry, I was in Sorni mode.

Ah, let's see. Someone mentions a reference and then proceeds to write or
paste the relevant points from that reference to make their case.

Someone /else/ (you) asks about the missing bits, and you're told why they
weren't included (and wehre to find them) and that's "Sorni mode" to you.

Sorni mode would be to assume the author (in this case Carl) included what
was relevant to make his point; or if I thought he was trying to hide
something, to go look so I could "bust him" for it.

You were too oblivious to do the former; and too lazy to do the latter.

Wrong & wrong, just a jest. Wake up, take a ride, live life outside
Usenet. Oh!, and try not to seem like such a petulant child all the time.

Quoted message said:

I'd call that "Whybrow Mode".

Be happy, don't worry

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"To communicate with Mars, converse with spirits, To report the
behaviour of the sea monster, Describe the horoscope,
haruspicate or scry, Observe disease in signatures." (T.S.Eliot)