Re: Too true to be good

In article <[email hidden]>,

JLB said:

Ad absurdum per aspera said:

A friend in the medical field calls sport bikes, or perhaps ones
ridden with a certain level of disrespect for the relative fragility of
cranium and concrete, "donorcycles." If memory serves, he also claimed
that you could watch the quality and quantity of used people parts
decrease when his state passed a helmet law.

So we drift back to UL territory with the oft-heard, never-demonstrated,
bicycle helmet law claim...

Possible his claim was true if fewer people rode bikes after the law was
passed, but most unlikely to be a consequence of any property of the
helmets themselves. Look at what the manufacturers say about their
helmets and you will find they make very limited claims for what the
helmets can do. Helmets can absorb only small amounts of energy and even
that depends on being correctly fitted and strapped in place. That,
however, is not the only factor to be taken into account in deciding if
a helmet law does any good. The body of "research" that supposedly
shows a benefit from helmets is either ambiguous or discredited. Helmet
laws for cyclists have no objective justification.

They keep you from having to pick gravel out of your scalp. That's a
benefit.

Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
-- Anonymous

Hugh Gibbons said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
JLB <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Helmet laws for cyclists have no objective justification.

Quoted message said:

They keep you from having to pick gravel out of your scalp.
That's a benefit.

Correct. They give some level of protection against trivial injuries at
the cost of slightly increasing the risk of really severe ones.

--
Dave...

Hugh Gibbons said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

JLB said:

shows a benefit from helmets is either ambiguous or discredited. Helmet
laws for cyclists have no objective justification.

They keep you from having to pick gravel out of your scalp. That's a
benefit.

They avoid the need to argue with weasely insurance company lawyers
about contributory negligence.

On balance, I believe that's teh only useful function, since the
injuries statistics tend to show a reduction in minor injuries
(gravel-scalp) at teh expense of an apparent increase in either rate
of or severity of serious injuries.

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

begin JLB <[email hidden]> quotation from
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

So we drift back to UL territory with the oft-heard, never-demonstrated,
bicycle helmet law claim...

We also drifted back to crossposting territory. Very poor form to do so
without a warning. One might even call it trollish behavior.

--
Karen J. Cravens

Hatunen said:

On 7 Apr 2005 02:10:18 -0700, "dkahn400" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Hugh Gibbons said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
JLB <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Helmet laws for cyclists have no objective justification.

Quoted message said:

They keep you from having to pick gravel out of your scalp.
That's a benefit.

Correct. They give some level of protection against trivial injuries at
the cost of slightly increasing the risk of really severe ones.

Are there statistics to support the claim that risk of severe
injuries is increased?

Yes, at population level - serious injury rate goes up when helmet
wearing rate goes up. It is, of course, difficult to separate whether
this is due to a higher proportion of cyclists wearing helmets, or a
lower number of cyclists.

You also need to treat the available statistics with caution. For
example, some of the studies thart 'prove' that helmets reduce head
injuries also 'prove' that they reduce leg injuries and turn you
caucasian.

Quoted message said:

Or, for that matter, that helmets provide little protection?

Yes, as above.

regards, Ian SMith

' Are there statistics to support the claim that risk of severe
injuries is increased? Or, for that matter, that helmets provide little
protection?'

One of the main causes of genuinely serious and fatal brain injuries
(and it is brain injuries that kill, not cuts to the head or even skull
fractures) is the brain moving around inside the skull in a high impact
crash, especially when 'rotational' or shear loads are imposed. Helmets
do little to reduce these injuries (think of the brain injuries a boxer
can sustain even when gloves are worn) and the size and mass of a
helmet can actually increase these rotational loads. The unprotected
human skull is designed to minimise these injuries having a slippery
outer layer, the scalp which can slider over a hard inner layer, the
skull. A motorcycle helmet called the Philips head protection system
has tried to replicate this effect in recognition of the central role
rotational and shear injuries play in death and serious brain injuries.

Also even polystyrene hats must obey the law of physics, a helmet can
only absorb a very limited amount of energy, a tiny fraction of that
generated when a cyclist is hit by a motor vehicle travelling at
speed.

Helmets are only rated for sub 12.5 Mph or at best 14 Mph impacts. It
is not even the case that a helmet can reduce the impact load in a real
world cash by the degree such figures might suggest. (For example
reducing a 30 Mph impact to the equivalent of a 16 Mph impact). The
energy generated in a crash rises with the square of the speed so a
helmeted impact at 42 Mph generates the same impact load as an
'unhelmeted' impact at around 40.5 Mph. Even this reduction may not
occur if the helmet breaks up as its energy absorbing ability relies on
it remaining intact and the foam layer being crushed down.

Unfortunately modern helmets are so full of vents that catastrophic
failures seems to be the norm: just consider how little effort it take
s to break up a piece of polystyrene as opposed to that needed to
crush it down. Those who claim that the fact that a helmet has broken
up is evidence that it has 'saved their life' are talking nonsense.

Quoted message said:

Or, for that matter, that helmets provide little protection?

In addition to Ian Smith's comments, cycle helmets work very well at
preventing minor injuries, but..:

<URL:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1081>

Anyone thinking of continuing this thread will probably find their
questions answered here:

<URL:http://www.cyclehelmets.org>
<URL:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/crossPartyGroups/groups/cycle-
docs/helmet-legis-commentary.pdf>

On 7 Apr 2005 02:10:18 -0700, "dkahn400" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Hugh Gibbons said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
JLB <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Helmet laws for cyclists have no objective justification.

Quoted message said:

They keep you from having to pick gravel out of your scalp.
That's a benefit.

Correct. They give some level of protection against trivial injuries at
the cost of slightly increasing the risk of really severe ones.

Are there statistics to support the claim that risk of severe
injuries is increased?

Or, for that matter, that helmets provide little protection?

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email hidden]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Response to Hatunen:

Quoted message said:

Are there statistics to support the claim that risk of severe
injuries is increased?

Or, for that matter, that helmets provide little protection?

Well, the manufacturers of helmets say they provide little protection.
Depends whether you believe the manufacturers. ;-)

--
Mark, UK.

"Morals consist of political morals, commercial morals, ecclesiastical
morals, and morals."

Response to Mark Thompson:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or, for that matter, that helmets provide little protection?

In addition to Ian Smith's comments, cycle helmets work very well at
preventing minor injuries, but..:

<URL:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1081>

Anyone thinking of continuing this thread will probably find their
questions answered here:

<URL:http://www.cyclehelmets.org>
<URL:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/crossPartyGroups/groups/cycle-
docs/helmet-legis-commentary.pdf>

In passing, I think it's worth saying that the burden of proof is surely
on the manufacturer/promoter of an item of safety equipment to give
evidence that on balance it provides some benefit.

--
Mark, UK.

"If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find
something in them to hang him."

Mark McNeill said:

Response to Mark Thompson:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or, for that matter, that helmets provide little protection?

In addition to Ian Smith's comments, cycle helmets work very well at
preventing minor injuries, but..:

<URL:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1081>

Anyone thinking of continuing this thread will probably find their
questions answered here:

<URL:http://www.cyclehelmets.org>
<URL:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/crossPartyGroups/groups/cycle-
docs/helmet-legis-commentary.pdf>

In passing, I think it's worth saying that the burden of proof is surely
on the manufacturer/promoter of an item of safety equipment to give
evidence that on balance it provides some benefit.

I assume that in the UK, as well as in the US, there are
governmental standards to meet.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email hidden]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In article <[email hidden]>,

Hatunen said:

Mark McNeill said:

Response to Mark Thompson:

Quoted message said:

> Or, for that matter, that helmets provide little protection?

In addition to Ian Smith's comments, cycle helmets work very well at
preventing minor injuries, but..:

<URL:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1081>

Anyone thinking of continuing this thread will probably find their
questions answered here:

<URL:http://www.cyclehelmets.org>
<URL:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/crossPartyGroups/groups/cycle-
docs/helmet-legis-commentary.pdf>

In passing, I think it's worth saying that the burden of proof is surely
on the manufacturer/promoter of an item of safety equipment to give
evidence that on balance it provides some benefit.

I assume that in the UK, as well as in the US, there are
governmental standards to meet.

There are. The question is whether the standard helmets are adequate to
prevent any injuries.

Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
-- Anonymous

Hatunen said:

I assume that in the UK, as well as in the US, there are
governmental standards to meet.

There are. The standard requires that teh helmet absorb teh energy
equivalent to removing your head from your body and dropping it
carefully onto a flat surface from slightly less than standing height
while stationary.

If you frequently fall over while sitting down, then cycling helmets
will probably save you from most consequent serious brain injuries.

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

in message <[email hidden]>, Hatunen

(') said:

On 7 Apr 2005 02:10:18 -0700, "dkahn400" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Hugh Gibbons said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
JLB <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Helmet laws for cyclists have no objective justification.

Quoted message said:

They keep you from having to pick gravel out of your scalp.
That's a benefit.

Correct. They give some level of protection against trivial injuries
at the cost of slightly increasing the risk of really severe ones.

Are there statistics to support the claim that risk of severe
injuries is increased?

They're hard to interpret. A number of things are certain:

(i) In countries where more people wear helmets, more people have
serious injuries, and vice versa - the safest places to ride are
Holland and Denmark, where virtually no-one wears a helmet.

(ii) Where helmet-wearing rates increase, the rate of serious injuries
increases faster. This is observable both in (e.g.) the US where there
has been no mandatory helmet law, and in (e.g.) Australia, where there
has. The _numbers_ of serious injuries fell in both Australia and New
Zeeland after the introduction of their mandatory helmet laws, but not
nearly as much as the number of cycle journeys fell.

It is not necessarily the case that helmet wearing aggravates injury,
but it may be. It's equally possible that some confounding factor is
involved. However, two possible mechanisms have been advanced:

(i) Risk compensation: cyclists wearing helmets think they are protected
and are more prepared to take risks, or, perhaps more credibly, drivers
seeing cyclists in helmets think they are protected and take more
risks.

(ii) Rotational injury: Wearing a helmet increases the effective size
(and particularly diameter) of your head by between 80% and 100%,
increasing the risk of torsional impacts - your head gets twisted more.
This causes rotation of the brain within the cranium which is a major
cause of severe brain damage.

Quoted message said:

Or, for that matter, that helmets provide little protection?

That's certain. Helmets are not tested to withstand even a fall from
your full height. In Europe, the test is for a fall of the head from a
metre off the ground. Nowhere test for falls from moving vehicles.
Expert evidence given (and not challenged) in a court of law in England
is that a cycling helmet will not even reliably protect you from injury
if you just fall over when stood up.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

See one nuclear war, you've seen them all.

in message <[email hidden]>, Hatunen

(') said:

Mark McNeill said:

Response to Mark Thompson:

Quoted message said:

> Or, for that matter, that helmets provide little protection?

In addition to Ian Smith's comments, cycle helmets work very well at
preventing minor injuries, but..:

<URL:http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1081>

Anyone thinking of continuing this thread will probably find their
questions answered here:

<URL:http://www.cyclehelmets.org>

<URL:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/crossPartyGroups/groups/cycle-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

docs/helmet-legis-commentary.pdf>

In passing, I think it's worth saying that the burden of proof is
surely on the manufacturer/promoter of an item of safety equipment to
give evidence that on balance it provides some benefit.

I assume that in the UK, as well as in the US, there are
governmental standards to meet.

There are.

The European test for cycle helmets involves dropping the helmet,
containing a dummy head weighing not more than 6Kg, onto a flat
surface from a height of 1.5 metres.

I don't know about you, but I'm 1.88 metres tall and I weigh 82Kg.

'Nuff said.

It has to be said that the American test is _slightly_ (not very much)
better.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; This email may contain confidential or otherwise privileged
;; information, though, quite frankly, if you're not the intended
;; recipient and you've got nothing better to do than read other
;; folks' emails then I'm glad to have brightened up your sad little
;; life a tiny bit.

Quoted message said:

I think it's worth saying that the burden of proof is surely
on the manufacturer/promoter of an item of safety equipment

Except, of course, when the promoter is a legislative body with a need to
justify re-election of some members to a set of voters. Then their prejudices
and unproven theories become law and the burden of proof is shifted to those
who would debunk. Of course, since your average governmental employee in a
modern bureaucracy will find admission of error to be a severe careen-killing
mistake in most circumstances, and since legislators are employess in a modern
bureaucracy, we usualy observe that upon perceiving what appears to be a potential
credible debunking is quite often met with a pre-emptive ad-hominem attack followed
by a massive dis-information campaign to justify the existing policies.

E.g., any attempt to rationalize drug laws must mean the persons doing so are
either stoned druggies or pushers just like any attempt to rationalize helmet
laws often gets responses which deliberately confuse the utility of bicycle
helmets for young children with the lack of utility for motorcyclists and suggests
motivations based upon reckless disregard for safety by daredevil maniacs

There are always ways to demonize one's adversaries and cast aspersions upon their
motivations. Enough of that and their logic and facts do not need to refuted. One
may wonder if the knee-jerk to such tactics in politicised venues is pure reflex
or whether those so indulging their baser instincts just happen to be aware that
this is about the only way to publicly refute otherwise irrefutable facts.

Pardon, is my sarcasm showing?

Kevin G. Rhoads said:

Pardon, is my sarcasm showing?

I don't know who you are, but I don't think you'll find much dissent in
u.r.c.

James

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pardon, is my sarcasm showing?

I don't know who you are, but I don't think you'll find much dissent in
u.r.c.

Cross-pondian who follows a.f.u somewhat but not u.r.c, I find that some people find
kvetching and sarcasm to be rather off-putting, so I crave pardon reflexively ;-)

Kevin G. Rhoads said:

Pardon, is my sarcasm showing?

I love you.

d.