Re: Helmets

Just zis Guy said:

On Tue, 24 May 2005 23:48:08 GMT, Mike Latondresse

mikelat@no_spam_shaw.ca said:

Quoted message said:

I know two seventy-year-olds
who suffered similar crashes at similar speeds and landed
head-first, the helmeted rider died, the unhelmeted one is fine.

Quoted message said:

So what was this a side by side simultaneous crash....how neat and
coincidental. Sounds bogus no matter how (if) it happened.

It's anecdotal evidence, which is always bogus. The point is simple
that all those "helmet saved my life" stories are equally bogus.

One good way to work out whether helmets save any measurable number of
serious injuries is to track the way injury profiles change with
helmet use in large populations. Our Department for Transport did
that and concluded that there is no known case where cyclist safety
has improved with increasing helmet use.

Guy

Well you keep not wearing your helmet and I'll keep wearing mine.Then
we'll both be happy.

Marty

Marty said:

Well you keep not wearing your helmet and I'll keep wearing mine.Then
we'll both be happy.

That was my preferred solution all along!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

Marty said:

Well you keep not wearing your helmet and I'll keep wearing mine.Then
we'll both be happy.

That was my preferred solution all along!

I'll add my preference: That assorted hand-wringers stop claiming that
riding a bike is so dangerous that you MUST wear a foam beanie.

Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

See http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

Marty said:

Well you keep not wearing your helmet and I'll keep wearing mine.Then
we'll both be happy.

That was my preferred solution all along!

I'll add my preference: That assorted hand-wringers stop claiming that
riding a bike is so dangerous that you MUST wear a foam beanie.

Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

See http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm

I continue to watch you:

- start with a conclusion and back out to its "support"

- accuse people who think helmet use is sensible of being
doom-and-gloom prophets, doing *horrible* things to the activity that
we all love.

These are not very appealing traits of yours, IMHO.

From the review of *the actual studies* [1] that I've been able to
endeavor, the following seem abundantly clear:

1) Wear a helmet
2) Make sure it fits properly
3) Do your best not to ride *less* safely *just because* you have a
helmet on.

The science that I've seen *overwhelmingly* indicates that you're less
likely to hurt your head this way if you're in an accident.

That's the science, and it seems pretty clear. Now, to approach the
*policy* part: I think people who ride without helmets are silly, but
I'm not advocating a law requiring their use. In fact, as I've said
before, I'd stand beside you in arguing against such a law.

I just get a bit weary of seeing your dogma dressed up as
pseudo-science.
-------------------------
[1] and the criticisms presented by the peer-reviewers, et al.

Neil Brooks said:

I continue to watch you:

- start with a conclusion and back out to its "support"

- accuse people who think helmet use is sensible of being
doom-and-gloom prophets, doing *horrible* things to the activity that
we all love.

These are not very appealing traits of yours, IMHO.

?? ISTM, your first objection complains about a standard method of
explanation: saying "Here's what we know, and here's why." Conclusion,
then support.

And regarding your second objection, surely you can't disagree that
helmet promoters frequently say that cycling is dangerous? If you
like, I can quote you the latest article from our newspaper, just three
days old... saying that "Helmets are needed by all riders" and quoting
the usual out-of-context numbers to "prove" that cycling is dangerous.

Quoted message said:

From the review of *the actual studies* [1] that I've been able to
endeavor, the following seem abundantly clear:

1) Wear a helmet

Just for bicycling? Or for all activities with a similar risk of
serious head injury? Like, for example, walking in a city?

Quoted message said:

2) Make sure it fits properly

Because if it does fit properly, it will be slightly less ineffective?

Quoted message said:

3) Do your best not to ride *less* safely *just because* you have a
helmet on.

I agree with this. But it's a _very_ rarely stated in helmet promotion
literature!

Quoted message said:

The science that I've seen *overwhelmingly* indicates that you're less
likely to hurt your head this way if you're in an accident.

Specifics, Neil? If you look only at case-control studies, with their
self-selected subjects and inadequate accounting for confounding
variables, what you say may be true - but that's some seriously bad
science. It's best exemplified by the Thompson & Rivara paper of 1989,
which predicted 85% reduction in head injury. But it wouldn't be
accepted for any other similar measure.

If you look at large population data, you find nothing close to that
85% benefit; in fact, you typically find no per-rider benefit for bike
helmets. IOW, remove the bias of self selection and the benefit goes
away.

But this is all beyond the point. I imagine hiking helmets could be
sold with the same nonsense that sells biking helmets (and I wouldn't
put it past them to try). But even if there were 100% benefit, do we
_really_ need hiking helmets??

Do we _really_ need to protect our heads every time we ride a bike to
the library??

Someone must be very fearful to think so!

Quoted message said:

That's the science, and it seems pretty clear. Now, to approach the
*policy* part: I think people who ride without helmets are silly,

Then you think the vast, vast majority of the world's cyclists are
silly, don't you?

"Silly Europeans! Silly Asians! Silly Africans! Silly South
Americans! Don't you know you must follow the American example? After
all, _we_ know about bicycling! You can tell by the way we drive our
cars everywhere! (Plus, we dress just like Lance Armstrong does!)"

but

Quoted message said:

I'm not advocating a law requiring their use. In fact, as I've said
before, I'd stand beside you in arguing against such a law.

I just get a bit weary of seeing your dogma dressed up as
pseudo-science.

Um... yes. Yet, from what I can tell, I'm the one providing data,
citations of refereed papers, things people can verify in their
libraries. You're providing your dearly held beliefs.

Anyone is welcome to check the references at
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm

although that's not specifically about helmets; it's about the actual
safety data for cycling.

If you want data on helmets, try http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

or try http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html

or
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmets

Check out any of the citations.

There's more, of course. But if you want to disagree, Neil, why not
pick a specific point and let's discuss it? (I'd prefer one from my
article, that quiz at Bicycling Life, since I'm most familiar with
that, but I'm open to any factual discussion.)

Vague accusations of "dogma" seem completely backwards when you're the
one stating your true beliefs without evidence!

- Frank Krygowski

Neil Brooks said:

From the review of *the actual studies* [1] that I've been able to
endeavor, the following seem abundantly clear:

1) Wear a helmet
2) Make sure it fits properly
3) Do your best not to ride *less* safely *just because* you have a
helmet on.

It doesn't seem at all clear to me, and this is precisely what I believed
before I read any studies. Indeed, *regardless* of the efficacy of
helmets, I have yet to see statistics that suggest cycling is dangerous
enough to warrant them.

Quoted message said:

The science that I've seen *overwhelmingly* indicates that you're less
likely to hurt your head this way if you're in an accident.

I've only seen this with regard to minor injuries. Could you provide some
links to some of the papers that convinced you, and that don't have obvious
flaws?

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

Zoot Katz said:

re: Liddites

I think Guy is playing off Luddites, a 19th century workers revolt.

Yeah, we got it.

Quoted message said:

Neil Brooks said:

I continue to watch you:

- start with a conclusion and back out to its "support"

- accuse people who think helmet use is sensible of being
doom-and-gloom prophets, doing *horrible* things to the activity that
we all love.

These are not very appealing traits of yours, IMHO.

?? ISTM, your first objection complains about a standard method of
explanation: saying "Here's what we know, and here's why." Conclusion,
then support.

And regarding your second objection, surely you can't disagree that
helmet promoters frequently say that cycling is dangerous?

I disagree with your repeated implication that anybody who thinks that
a helmet can be beneficial in reducing or eliminating head injuries is
characterizing cycling in the loaded and alarmist way that you are
accusing them of: as "dangerous."

Quoted message said:

If you like, I can quote you the latest article from our newspaper, just three
days old... saying that "Helmets are needed by all riders" and quoting
the usual out-of-context numbers to "prove" that cycling is dangerous.

I wouldn't like, but . . . if you find some purpose in quoting it, by
all means, do. If not, then write to the author and tell him how your
damaging ouru sport. Then tell me how he's damaging our sport.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From the review of *the actual studies* [1] that I've been able to
endeavor, the following seem abundantly clear:

1) Wear a helmet

Just for bicycling? Or for all activities with a similar risk of
serious head injury? Like, for example, walking in a city?

When I log on to rec.leisure.citywalking, I'll let you know. How do
you like your Red Herring, Frank? Smoked or grilled?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2) Make sure it fits properly

Because if it does fit properly, it will be slightly less ineffective?

And there you go: preconception precluding any possible learning. The
studies I've seen indicate that the maximum benefit (reduction in
incidence and/or severity of injury afforded by helmet use) can be
mitigated by wearing an improperly fitted helmet. IOW: *less
helpful*.

Frank, do you just *scream* if a medicine prescribed for you says
"Take with food?" Do you *steadfastly refuse* to take that medicine?
All that means is: the proven efficacy of this drug is dependent upon
its use in the following manner.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3) Do your best not to ride *less* safely *just because* you have a
helmet on.

I agree with this. But it's a _very_ rarely stated in helmet promotion
literature!

But that's not what rec.bicycles.misc *is* and yet you still come
across as defending against an argument that is not oft being made to
those who aren't making it.

Just tell people to remember that--if an argument is being made by
somebody who stands to profit from its adoption, it should be
evaluated in that light.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The science that I've seen *overwhelmingly* indicates that you're less
likely to hurt your head this way if you're in an accident.

Specifics, Neil?

What I've *never* seen is a *reasonably scientific* (that's not a
dismissal of anything not supporting a position. It's a commonly
established process) that shows that a well-fitting bike helmet has
*no* effect, or a negative effect, on reduction of frequency and/or
severity of head injuries.

Based on available data, telling people that helmets don't help you
seems irresponsible. Telling people that *mandating* helmet use is
wrong-headed makes *more* sense (to me). Telling people that they
should beware the helmet salespeople advocating mandatory usage makes
even *more* sense. But confusing those ideologies with the underlying
issue--all things being equal (there's that darned 'control' thing
again), do helmets reduce head injury--is misleading and, imho,
irresponsible without supporting data.

Quoted message said:

If you look only at case-control studies, with their
self-selected subjects and inadequate accounting for confounding
variables, what you say may be true - but that's some seriously bad
science. It's best exemplified by the Thompson & Rivara paper of 1989,
which predicted 85% reduction in head injury. But it wouldn't be
accepted for any other similar measure.

Then discount an 85% number by . . . say 85% (or 99%, if that helps)
to account for some influence of confouding variables. Or you find
some merit for dismissing the study as fatally flawed *based* on those
variables.

If you choose the discount method (.85 - (.85*.85)) (probably best
based on the methodologies of the studies I've seen) You still wind up
with 12.75% reduction in head injury. Use 99% as the discount rate
and you get a 0.85% reduction.

I'm not going to quibble with the resulting numbers. Too much room
for error. What *I'm* looking for--and suspect that many others,
especially newbies, are, too, is directional info supported by
reasonable science. *Am I* safer. Next question--"By how much"--is
clearly more difficult, but I still go back to my usual line:

And the downside to their elective use is???

Quoted message said:

If you look at large population data, you find nothing close to that
85% benefit;

Thus the discount concept.

Quoted message said:

in fact, you typically find no per-rider benefit for bike
helmets.

Huh?

Quoted message said:

IOW, remove the bias of self selection and the benefit goes
away.

But this is all beyond the point. I imagine hiking helmets could be
sold with the same nonsense that sells biking helmets (and I wouldn't
put it past them to try). But even if there were 100% benefit, do we
_really_ need hiking helmets??

When you're drawn out, you get far more accurate, but must somebody
always draw you out?

Your position *against* mandatory helmet use makes sense, to me.
Stick with that position, rather than fighting every single time
somebody asks a helmet question, and you'll likely have fewer
detractors.

Quoted message said:

Do we _really_ need to protect our heads every time we ride a bike to
the library?? Someone must be very fearful to think so!

Whoops! There's the ol' FK bias showing again....

You've just foisted *your* tolerance for risk and the actual risk
where and how you ride, coupled with *your* questionable evaluation of
the available data, on everybody.

You've also painted, with a broad and damning brush, everybody who
buckles up *because they want to* when they drive to the corner store
because, statistically, they aren't likely to get into an injury
accident.

It's more of your leading language, and that's not really helpful
here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's the science, and it seems pretty clear. Now, to approach the
*policy* part: I think people who ride without helmets are silly,

Then you think the vast, vast majority of the world's cyclists are
silly, don't you?

Quite a few of them are, sure. I should have qualified my statement
(egads): it's risk/reward. I still don't understand the no-helmet
reward very well, and nobody's done a good job of explaining it to me.

I'd also further qualify *my* statement to say: helmets seem to help.
You decide--based on skill level, geography (traffic, etc.), and your
evaluation of the risk (what risk in wearing a helmet again?)/reward
equation whether or not to wear one.

I just don't think "don't wanna' look like a dork" is a great reason
not to. Neither do I think being called a fear-monger or threatening
somebody (not accusing you of this, per se) of hastening the demise of
cycling for wearing one is helpful.

Quoted message said:

"Silly Europeans! Silly Asians! Silly Africans! Silly South
Americans! Don't you know you must follow the American example? After
all, _we_ know about bicycling! You can tell by the way we drive our
cars everywhere! (Plus, we dress just like Lance Armstrong does!)"

{overhead page blaring} Frank, please return to the conversation.
Frank.

Quoted message said:

but

Quoted message said:

I'm not advocating a law requiring their use. In fact, as I've said
before, I'd stand beside you in arguing against such a law.

I just get a bit weary of seeing your dogma dressed up as
pseudo-science.

Um... yes. Yet, from what I can tell, I'm the one providing data,
citations of refereed papers, things people can verify in their
libraries. You're providing your dearly held beliefs.

Well, here's a link to the Rivara meta-study (that you don't happen to
like):

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2009.pdf

And one to criticism of it, and the authors' response to those
criticisms:

http://www.cochrane-injuries.lshtm.ac.uk/helmetcomment.pdf

Quoted message said:

Anyone is welcome to check the references at
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm

Do you have copies of those *actual* studies/papers? I can't find
them (and please don't throw out "not going to do your work for you,
blah, blah, blah." You either have them or you don't.)

Quoted message said:

although that's not specifically about helmets; it's about the actual
safety data for cycling.

If you want data on helmets, try http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

or try http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html

Much editorial stuff, starting from your position, about cycling
*fatalities*, but--again--I'd like to avoid *all injuries* (remember:
I'm a wuss. Others may be, too).

I love quotes like "Constant promotion of helmets diverts attention
from effective accident reduction measures and makes cycling look so
dangerous that it scares some people off cycling completely."

There's sooooo much wrong with that statement.....

Quoted message said:

or
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmets

The criticisms here (for the moment, I'm addressing Rivara), again,
are so narrow (risk compensation is viable in *kids*). *You* tend to
draw inferences here and apply them broadly. I think that's
irresponsible.

Quoted message said:

Check out any of the citations.

There's more, of course. But if you want to disagree, Neil, why not
pick a specific point and let's discuss it? (I'd prefer one from my
article, that quiz at Bicycling Life, since I'm most familiar with
that, but I'm open to any factual discussion.)

HAH! That's funny! Thanks for putting my criticism in such stark
relief :-)

Quoted message said:

Vague accusations of "dogma" seem completely backwards when you're the
one stating your true beliefs without evidence!

I'm not stating any beliefs at all. I'm saying that studies
performed--even those in your chapmancentral link--consistently
indicate *some measure of protection* is provided by proper wear of a
well-fitting bicycle helmet. In other words, there is near unanimity,
or unanimity, to that conclusion. Argument goes on forever about
quantity, certainly more difficult to pin down, but whether or not
there's benefit seems consistently established, even in the cites you
provide.

So here's what I'm suggesting: Don't answer the risk:reward question
for others. Let them do it themselves.

Show conclusive proof that voluntary helmet use is a bad idea
(increases risk of head injury, rather than reduces it).

THAT, to me, is the better, more important argument.

Neil

Benjamin Lewis said:

Neil Brooks said:

From the review of *the actual studies* [1] that I've been able to
endeavor, the following seem abundantly clear:

1) Wear a helmet
2) Make sure it fits properly
3) Do your best not to ride *less* safely *just because* you have a
helmet on.

It doesn't seem at all clear to me, and this is precisely what I believed
before I read any studies. Indeed, *regardless* of the efficacy of
helmets, I have yet to see statistics that suggest cycling is dangerous
enough to warrant them.

1) have you seen any studies that show

.....a) no reduction in injury/fatality rate or severity, or
.....b) an increase in injury/fatality rate or severity associated with
the use of a well-fitting helmet?

2) the latter part is back to the individual risk:reward tolerance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The science that I've seen *overwhelmingly* indicates that you're less
likely to hurt your head this way if you're in an accident.

I've only seen this with regard to minor injuries. Could you provide some
links to some of the papers that convinced you, and that don't have obvious
flaws?

Here's Frank's citation:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmets

I'll excerpt it for you (and this is the conclusion of its authors,
not my interpretation of their position):

"Yup, they definitely work. Up to a point. The $64 question is, of
course, what point."

So, again, they work. How much is arguable. Whether or not the
individual thinks the risk (what risk again) associate with ownership
and wear is justified by the reward is an individual decision.

Neil Brooks said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

Neil Brooks said:

From the review of *the actual studies* [1] that I've been able to
endeavor, the following seem abundantly clear:

1) Wear a helmet
2) Make sure it fits properly
3) Do your best not to ride *less* safely *just because* you have a
helmet on.

It doesn't seem at all clear to me, and this is precisely what I
believed before I read any studies. Indeed, *regardless* of the
efficacy of helmets, I have yet to see statistics that suggest cycling
is dangerous enough to warrant them.

1) have you seen any studies that show

....a) no reduction in injury/fatality rate or severity, or

I've seen studies that show no changes in fatality rates.

Quoted message said:

....b) an increase in injury/fatality rate or severity associated with
the use of a well-fitting helmet?

No, but I'm not arguing that helmets increase injuries.

Quoted message said:

2) the latter part is back to the individual risk:reward tolerance.

Quite. And yet, you claim that it is "abundantly clear" that one should
wear a helmet, and think that people who do not are silly.

To take a ridiculously extreme example, if I published a paper that
conclusively proved that wearing a helmet in bed could prevent 100% of
nighttime head injuries due to falling airplane engines, people would
rightly think I was a loon if I then claimed that this made it abundantly
clear that wearing a helmet in bed was a good idea.

I believe the onus is on the people making such statements to indicate the
level of risk of the given activity in comparison with other day-to-day
activities that people normally consider safe enough to forego the extra
safety precautions.

All the statistics I've seen regarding cycling (admittedly few) indicate
that the level of risk is somewhere between walking and driving, and
neither of these are activities where people would be considered "silly"
for failure to wear a helmet.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

Benjamin Lewis said:

Neil Brooks said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

Neil Brooks wrote:

> From the review of *the actual studies* [1] that I've been able to
> endeavor, the following seem abundantly clear:
>
> 1) Wear a helmet
> 2) Make sure it fits properly
> 3) Do your best not to ride *less* safely *just because* you have a
> helmet on.

It doesn't seem at all clear to me, and this is precisely what I
believed before I read any studies. Indeed, *regardless* of the
efficacy of helmets, I have yet to see statistics that suggest cycling
is dangerous enough to warrant them.

1) have you seen any studies that show

....a) no reduction in injury/fatality rate or severity, or

I've seen studies that show no changes in fatality rates.

I guess you and Frank (and, potentially, many others) are vastly
different from me in that you're only concern is death while mine is
also injury. I don't mean to be glib here. I'm quite serious. To
focus only on cycling *fatality* statistics seems really bizarre to
me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

....b) an increase in injury/fatality rate or severity associated with
the use of a well-fitting helmet?

No, but I'm not arguing that helmets increase injuries.

Quoted message said:

2) the latter part is back to the individual risk:reward tolerance.

Quite. And yet, you claim that it is "abundantly clear" that one should
wear a helmet, and think that people who do not are silly.

From the research I've seen, if you want to reduce the likelihood of
cycling-related injury or death, a helmet is a cheap, easy way to do
that.

I do think people who eschew that are probably pretty silly, but I'm
not trying to stop them from doing so.

I also think people who smoke cigarettes are silly, but I'm not trying
to stop them from smoking either (though I'd rather not have to
breathe it).

Quoted message said:

I believe the onus is on the people making such statements to indicate the
level of risk of the given activity in comparison with other day-to-day
activities that people normally consider safe enough to forego the extra
safety precautions.

I don't. I believe the onus is on the prospective bike rider to find
(meaning that somebody *should* provide) accurate, unbiased
information regarding the efficacy of a helmet, then it's up to them
to decide if it's really worth the . . . the . . . the . . . what's
all that helmet downside again? Always slips my mind....

Quoted message said:

All the statistics I've seen regarding cycling (admittedly few) indicate
that the level of risk is somewhere between walking and driving, and
neither of these are activities where people would be considered "silly"
for failure to wear a helmet.

When the car parallel comes up (not that you made it directly, but you
did make it indirectly), I'm baffled by the avoidance of the obvious:
cars have seatbelts. In fact, *mandatory* seatbelts (since ~ '73).
If the *best* way to take a *big swipe* at auto collision injury and
death was seatbelts, that's what they did.

But again, it's not about the law for me. I don't care about the law
in this case. I wear my seatbelt because a) it may save my life (or
save me from injury. Remember: I'm a wuss), and b) I don't see the
downside.

So, for bike helmets: they may save my life (or save me from injury.
Remember: I'm a wuss), and I don't really see any downside.

YMMV

On Wed, 25 May 2005 10:33:56 -0700, Zoot Katz <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

I think Guy is playing off Luddites, a 19th century workers revolt.

Correct, five points. I am, after all, from the BRITONS' England,
where such things happened.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/mini-faq-liddite

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Wed, 25 May 2005 18:16:35 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Here's Frank's citation:
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmets

Quoted message said:

I'll excerpt it for you

Hey, don't trouble on my account ;-)

Quoted message said:

(and this is the conclusion of its authors, not my interpretation of
their position):

Quoted message said:

"Yup, they definitely work. Up to a point. The $64 question is, of
course, what point."

And that point is, as far as I can make out, just short of that at
which national injury stats start being collected. I think helmets
work well against cuts, grazes and mild concussion, but anything more
than that is strictly the roll of the dice. I don't think such
injuries are sufficiently common or sufficiently dangerous to warrant
wearing a helmet on a dry road in good weather, but the chance of
coming off in the dark in the rain is sufficient that I'll often wear
one for winter commutes. It's also a convenient mounting point for a
headtorch.

But you are wrong in as much as what you excerpt is not the conclusion
of the authors of that page (and trust me, I am uniquely qualified to
comment on this). The conclusion is mainly that helmet promotion is a
diversion, and the current monomania for helmets a dangerous
distraction from the real business of cycle safety.

Quoted message said:

So, again, they work. How much is arguable. Whether or not the
individual thinks the risk (what risk again) associate with ownership
and wear is justified by the reward is an individual decision.

Sure. And you know what? I don't accuse people of being silly if
they choose to wear a helmet. Or if they don't.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Neil Brooks said:

From the research I've seen, if you want to reduce the likelihood of
cycling-related injury or death, a helmet is a cheap, easy way to do
that.

I do think people who eschew that are probably pretty silly, but I'm
not trying to stop them from doing so.

I also think people who smoke cigarettes are silly, but I'm not trying
to stop them from smoking either (though I'd rather not have to
breathe it).

I agree with the latter, but cigarette smoking is more likely to kill you
by at least an order of magnitude, probably more.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I believe the onus is on the people making such statements to indicate
the level of risk of the given activity in comparison with other
day-to-day activities that people normally consider safe enough to
forego the extra safety precautions.

I don't. I believe the onus is on the prospective bike rider to find
(meaning that somebody *should* provide) accurate, unbiased
information regarding the efficacy of a helmet,

I completely agree with the latter, but I still think that if people are
going to claim that it's a "good idea" to wear a helmet, the onus is on
*them* to indicate why they think cycling is dangerous enough to warrant
it. These are two completely separate questions.

Quoted message said:

then it's up to them to decide if it's really worth the . . . the . . .
the . . . what's all that helmet downside again? Always slips my
mind....

The helmet downside is whatever reason you have for not wearing a helmet
during other common activities, such as walking on downtown streets.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All the statistics I've seen regarding cycling (admittedly few) indicate
that the level of risk is somewhere between walking and driving, and
neither of these are activities where people would be considered "silly"
for failure to wear a helmet.

When the car parallel comes up (not that you made it directly, but you
did make it indirectly), I'm baffled by the avoidance of the obvious:
cars have seatbelts. In fact, *mandatory* seatbelts (since ~ '73).
If the *best* way to take a *big swipe* at auto collision injury and
death was seatbelts, that's what they did.

I'm not suggesting you should wear a helmet instead of a seatbelt, I'm
suggesting you could prevent additional head injuries (and they certainly
do occur!) by wearing a helmet *in addition to* a seatbelt.

Quoted message said:

But again, it's not about the law for me. I don't care about the law
in this case. I wear my seatbelt because a) it may save my life (or
save me from injury. Remember: I'm a wuss), and b) I don't see the
downside.

So, for bike helmets: they may save my life (or save me from injury.
Remember: I'm a wuss), and I don't really see any downside.

Which brings us once again to the perennial question: why don't you wear a
helmet in a car or while walking downtown? They may save your life, and
there's really no downside.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 25 May 2005 18:16:35 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Here's Frank's citation:
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmets

Quoted message said:

I'll excerpt it for you

Hey, don't trouble on my account ;-)

Quoted message said:

(and this is the conclusion of its authors, not my interpretation of
their position):

Quoted message said:

"Yup, they definitely work. Up to a point. The $64 question is, of
course, what point."

And that point is, as far as I can make out, just short of that at
which national injury stats start being collected. I think helmets
work well against cuts, grazes and mild concussion, but anything more
than that is strictly the roll of the dice. I don't think such
injuries are sufficiently common or sufficiently dangerous to warrant
wearing a helmet on a dry road in good weather, but the chance of
coming off in the dark in the rain is sufficient that I'll often wear
one for winter commutes. It's also a convenient mounting point for a
headtorch.

But you are wrong in as much as what you excerpt is not the conclusion
of the authors of that page (and trust me, I am uniquely qualified to
comment on this). The conclusion is mainly that helmet promotion is a
diversion, and the current monomania for helmets a dangerous
distraction from the real business of cycle safety.

Well, since it's your page, I'll obviously defer, but the presentation
lead me to believe it was your conclusion, though I *did* also read
the next section. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, again, they work. How much is arguable. Whether or not the
individual thinks the risk (what risk again) associate with ownership
and wear is justified by the reward is an individual decision.

Sure. And you know what? I don't accuse people of being silly if
they choose to wear a helmet. Or if they don't.

I happen to like silly people. Where's Maggie ;-)

I also like the "Can we stop now?" section of your page. Where I
think stopping is warranted is when we get to the middle--to points on
which we agree.

My beliefs (and I'm under no illusion that anybody cares, but this
*is* Usenet....):

I feel safe (from a research, not political, POV) in saying that a
helmet offers *some* measure of protection from *some* types of
injury. It's directionally fairly well proved out, though
quantitatively wildly in flux.

I feel comfortable with an assertion that current, well-fitting
helmets offer *minimal* downside (as opposed to the *no downside*
section of your page). That's certainly a judgment call, and each
should make it for themselves, but a potential wearer should both try
on a new helmet, properly fitted to their head, and do a little soul
search (is it really uncomfortable, or do I just think I look "silly"
with it on) before deciding.

- there should be ready access to accurate information for those
trying to decide whether or not to wear, especially new cyclists who
may or may not have mastered vehicular/effective/safe cycling skills.

- wearing a helmet doesn't make you "invincible." If you are stupid,
you will likely get hurt no matter. If you take more chances, your
risk likely goes up.

- the opinions of those who stand to profit should always be viewed
with skepticism. That applies in more places than cycling.

- Everybody should make a well-informed risk:reward decision. If
Frank has mastered cycling in his part of Ohio, he likely has to
consider far less risk than somebody relatively inexperienced doing a
pas de deux with 7,200# Ford Excursions (or potholes or other
bike-commuters or . . . ) on their Southern California commute might.

To me, those are the components to help a newbie make a lid/no-lid
decision.

Things that I think are *not* helpful in this discussion:

- calling cycling dangerous

- saying that cycling is *not* dangerous (eg, using the exceptionally
impressive fatality statistics to imply that you cannot be hurt on a
bicycle)

- concluding that advocating an individual's right to an informed
choice is somehow hurting our sport

- legislation requiring helmet wear

- the whole "We have bigger fish to fry" argument. We should fry
those fish, too, but that has no bearing on the relative truth of this
issue

- taking individual parts of studies out of context to make one's
point (or dismissing a study *solely* on the basis of its disagreement
with one's position)

On 25 May 2005 13:03:47 -0700, "gds" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

True, but in the old testament there are many XXXXites. What makes it a
fact that the interpretation had to be confined to Luddites. So, to me,
at least, it had a very biblical sound and it rang with what I see as a
belief based rather than data based argument.

Ah, but that is an American perspective. I am from Britain, where the
reference is unlikely to be misunderstood.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/mini-faq-liddite

As to whether my view is data based or faith based...

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Research_Evidence

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Benjamin Lewis said:

Neil Brooks said:

From the research I've seen, if you want to reduce the likelihood of
cycling-related injury or death, a helmet is a cheap, easy way to do
that.

I do think people who eschew that are probably pretty silly, but I'm
not trying to stop them from doing so.

I also think people who smoke cigarettes are silly, but I'm not trying
to stop them from smoking either (though I'd rather not have to
breathe it).

I agree with the latter, but cigarette smoking is more likely to kill you
by at least an order of magnitude, probably more.

Of course, but I haven't found a single word to express "1/100th
silly"

I think *you* and I agree far more than we disagree.

Quoted message said:

The helmet downside is whatever reason you have for not wearing a helmet
during other common activities, such as walking on downtown streets.

As much as I'd enjoy arguing with you there, I really can't. It comes
down to--and I don't think you're disagreeing here--how big is that
downside, really . . . and where are you on the risk:reward thing.
Most of us probably feel that there are far fewer variables outside
our control in the sidewalk scenario, stats be damned.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All the statistics I've seen regarding cycling (admittedly few) indicate
that the level of risk is somewhere between walking and driving, and
neither of these are activities where people would be considered "silly"
for failure to wear a helmet.

When the car parallel comes up (not that you made it directly, but you
did make it indirectly), I'm baffled by the avoidance of the obvious:
cars have seatbelts. In fact, *mandatory* seatbelts (since ~ '73).
If the *best* way to take a *big swipe* at auto collision injury and
death was seatbelts, that's what they did.

I'm not suggesting you should wear a helmet instead of a seatbelt, I'm
suggesting you could prevent additional head injuries (and they certainly
do occur!) by wearing a helmet *in addition to* a seatbelt.

Understood, but the helmet is basically the only "first step" safety
measure in a cyclist's wardrobe (gloves? Eh, only kinda'😉. It's
probably a fairly big payoff vis-a-vis cost:benefit (as separate from
risk:reward), the same way that a seatbelt is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But again, it's not about the law for me. I don't care about the law
in this case. I wear my seatbelt because a) it may save my life (or
save me from injury. Remember: I'm a wuss), and b) I don't see the
downside.

So, for bike helmets: they may save my life (or save me from injury.
Remember: I'm a wuss), and I don't really see any downside.

Which brings us once again to the perennial question: why don't you wear a
helmet in a car or while walking downtown? They may save your life, and
there's really no downside.

1) Many downsides, I would argue -- especially in your vehicular
argument. A helmet for car/motorcycle use is an expensive,
cumbersome, heavy, hot, constricting, restricting thing in a
dramatically bigger way than a bike helmet (I have several examples of
both in my closet).

2) There you go on fatalities again . . . and you go without me.

3) And there you go with the personalization thing . . . where you
lose me again. *My* decision will always be based on good information
and a calculated risk, and may differ from yours.

But one factor I want to reinforce: I'm really not particularly
influenced by the whole image thing. I'm pretty convinced that--for
many, many people--*that's* the *real* downside to helmet wear . . .

.. . . and yes, I climb some pretty big-a$$ hills on some pretty
a$$-hot days with mine firmly on.

Neil Brooks said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

Which brings us once again to the perennial question: why don't you wear
a helmet in a car or while walking downtown? They may save your life,
and there's really no downside.

1) Many downsides, I would argue -- especially in your vehicular
argument. A helmet for car/motorcycle use is an expensive,
cumbersome, heavy, hot, constricting, restricting thing in a
dramatically bigger way than a bike helmet (I have several examples of
both in my closet).

You could wear a bicycle helmet in the car. That's bound to still prevent
some injuries or fatalities, right?

The reason bicycle helmets are as light and ventilated as they are is
because people wouldn't wear them otherwise. You could easily make
automobile helmets for everyday use follow the same standards.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:30:34 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Quoted message said:

you are wrong in as much as what you excerpt is not the conclusion
of the authors of that page (and trust me, I am uniquely qualified to
comment on this).

Quoted message said:

Well, since it's your page, I'll obviously defer, but the presentation
lead me to believe it was your conclusion, though I *did* also read
the next section. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

No problem - actually the page doesn't have a formally stated
conclusion stated as such (perhaps it should).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And you know what? I don't accuse people of being silly if
they choose to wear a helmet. Or if they don't.

Quoted message said:

I happen to like silly people. Where's Maggie ;-)

Quite. As long as we can all be grown up about it, there is no need
for flame wars.

Quoted message said:

I also like the "Can we stop now?" section of your page. Where I
think stopping is warranted is when we get to the middle--to points on
which we agree.

Not everyone does agree, though. That's why it's there.

Quoted message said:

I feel safe (from a research, not political, POV) in saying that a
helmet offers *some* measure of protection from *some* types of
injury. It's directionally fairly well proved out, though
quantitatively wildly in flux.

Correct. But you must also be aware that the fact of wearing one will
also make it more likely that you will have a crash in the first
place. So there are two effects of opposite sign and unknown
magnitude.

Quoted message said:

I feel comfortable with an assertion that current, well-fitting
helmets offer *minimal* downside (as opposed to the *no downside*
section of your page).

Really? Hmmm. I have a helmet, it is hanging on the hook by the
side of the bike. You know that I have understood the research, you
know that I accept that helmets prevent some injuries. Why do I
usually not wear the helmet? I think the downside must be bigger than
you suppose (certainly bigger than I used to suppose).

Quoted message said:

That's certainly a judgment call, and each
should make it for themselves, but a potential wearer should both try
on a new helmet, properly fitted to their head, and do a little soul
search (is it really uncomfortable, or do I just think I look "silly"
with it on) before deciding.

LOL! You think looking silly is a concern? I ride a Brompton folder,
a recumbent and a double-childback triplet! Image is *far* from my
mind!

Quoted message said:

- there should be ready access to accurate information for those
trying to decide whether or not to wear, especially new cyclists who
may or may not have mastered vehicular/effective/safe cycling skills.

Indeed. At the moment what they get is the 1989 Seattle study and
"use it or lose it" [censored].

Quoted message said:

- Everybody should make a well-informed risk:reward decision. If
Frank has mastered cycling in his part of Ohio, he likely has to
consider far less risk than somebody relatively inexperienced doing a
pas de deux with 7,200# Ford Excursions (or potholes or other
bike-commuters or . . . ) on their Southern California commute might.

The best solution is to get trained.

Quoted message said:

Things that I think are *not* helpful in this discussion:
- calling cycling dangerous
- saying that cycling is *not* dangerous (eg, using the exceptionally
impressive fatality statistics to imply that you cannot be hurt on a
bicycle)

Why? A dominant feature of helmet debate is the false perception that
cycling is unusually dangerous and unusually productive of head
injury. Cycling is safer than a range of activities which we happily
undertake every day without batting an eyelid. A realistic
appreciation of risk is key to making an informed choice, after all.

Quoted message said:

- concluding that advocating an individual's right to an informed
choice is somehow hurting our sport

Who has ever said that? OK, I know one example: a helmet zealot once
told me that discussing the failure of helmet laws to reduce head
injury rates was interfering in their making an informed choice.

Quoted message said:

- legislation requiring helmet wear

Has a place in debate, because of the opportunity it gives us to study
the effect of helmet use on those who are not inherently risk-averse.

Quoted message said:

- the whole "We have bigger fish to fry" argument. We should fry
those fish, too, but that has no bearing on the relative truth of this
issue

No, you are wrong here. Helmets have dominated the cycle safety
debate for years, to the point that over 85% of "cycle safety"
interventions in the UK are helmet campaigns, according to one of our
accident surveillance reports. It is vitally important to reintroduce
a sense of perspective.

CS Downing's "Pedal Cycle Accidents in Great Britain" (TRRL, 1985)
rated the efficacy of interventions in reducing cyclist casualties
thus:

Road engineering (Cycling facilities, blackspot treatment) 10%
Education, training, publicity, and enforcement 5%
New initiatives aimed at improving road user behaviour 5%
Area wide low cost engineering measures 5%
Car external softening 3%
Heavy goods vehicle side guards 2%
Bicycle engineering/construction (including helmets) 1%

Do you think this is accurately reflected in current cycle safety
campaigns you encounter?

Quoted message said:

- taking individual parts of studies out of context to make one's
point (or dismissing a study *solely* on the basis of its disagreement
with one's position)

Bill who? ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Benjamin Lewis said:

Neil Brooks said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

Which brings us once again to the perennial question: why don't you wear
a helmet in a car or while walking downtown? They may save your life,
and there's really no downside.

1) Many downsides, I would argue -- especially in your vehicular
argument. A helmet for car/motorcycle use is an expensive,
cumbersome, heavy, hot, constricting, restricting thing in a
dramatically bigger way than a bike helmet (I have several examples of
both in my closet).

You could wear a bicycle helmet in the car. That's bound to still prevent
some injuries or fatalities, right?

Don't know. I have airbags all around me that probably do a better
job and offer more protection.

Quoted message said:

The reason bicycle helmets are as light and ventilated as they are is
because people wouldn't wear them otherwise. You could easily make
automobile helmets for everyday use follow the same standards.

Or you could make airbags more affordable, or transfer DOD radar
technology, in an affordable way, to alert you to potential crash
situations, or you could legislate against cell-phone use while
driving, or . . .

I have to presume your helmet-while-driving-a-car thing is facetious.
Too many other, better bang-for-the-buck opportunities. Can you name
lower-hanging fruit in cycling?

That seems to be the issue.