Skull Study Proves Bike Helmets Work

Les Earnest said:

Here is an opportunity for the anti-helmet folks to get something
through their thick skulls. Have fun, but I'm not sticking around.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/481959/skull_study_proves_bike_helmets_work/index.html?source=r_health

-Les Earnest

It just makes some sense that anything that absorbs impact is going to
help, but I really wish that they were dropping those test items onto a
spinning sandpaper belt that would replicate the torsional effect of
ashphalt on the helmet. The coefficient of friction involved there
would seem to me, and to some others, be a question that needs
investigating. They also need to test what the rotational forces are
with various weight pinning the helmet to the moving surface and how
that effects the rotational direction in the force applied to the
person.
At most bicycle speeds my guess is that this isn't a big deal, other
than on serious decents, but I don't remember seeing info on this with
relation to bicycle helmets. For the vast majority of crashes,
especially at kid speed, I just haven't seen any negative to wearing
helmets, or for forcing learning/inexperienced riders who are at much
higher risk to wear them sinc it comes out of all our collective
insurance rates, or tax dollars.
Once they are over 18, then they should have free choice, but
insurance companies shouldn't have to pay for head injuries incurred
while not wearing a helmet, and if the state pays, then the tax
returns, if any, should be taken until the cost is payed off.
Freedom always comes with cost, and responsibility.
Bill C

Les Earnest said:

Here is an opportunity for the anti-helmet folks to get something
through their thick skulls. Have fun, but I'm not sticking around.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/481959/skull_study_proves_bike_helmets_work/index.html?source=r_health

Figures don't lie

But Liars can sure figure

--
Le vent a Dos
Davey Crockett

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

Quoted message said:

Here is an opportunity for the anti-helmet folks to get something
through their thick skulls. Have fun, but I'm not sticking around.

About helmets... apply Darwinism here.

Les, you flame thrower. Run before you get caught in the fire.
Kinda like pulling the fire alarm to watch everyone scramble. Or shooting
bottle rockets at a dorm ...

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

Quoted message said:

Here is an opportunity for the anti-helmet folks to get something through
their thick skulls. Have fun, but I'm not sticking around.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/481959/skull_study_proves_bike_helmets_work/index.html?source=r_health

Helmets works it says. And then they use a bunch of phony statistics and
gee - they don't give the actual methodology they used to TEST these things.

A brain isn't WATER. Cracked or not the impact is rarely the cause of death
and the spining of the brain in the skull that causes the blood vessels to
rupture and the brain to be crushed by the inflation of the skull with blood
pressure is.

Another two bit number - 70,000 head injuries a year. And yet 67,000 of them
are minor injuries TO THE FACE.

The fact is that if they HAD some scientific evidence that was worthwhile
they would print it instead of telling us that they did it and it was good
enough for them.

But of course the REAL numbers show no changes in head injury numbers before
helmets and now that essentially everyone but homeless poeple wear them.

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/kunich.html

See table "US Cyclist & Pedestrian Fatalities 1986 - 2000"

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/image18.gif

See table "Figure 2 Trends (pedestrians/cyclists scaled to 5.65:1 ratio) "

And as an added bonus:

http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/march/ac722.pdf

"Injuries to cyclists follow a clear "safety in numbers" relation; injury
rates per cyclist are lower when more people cycle.17 Data for cyclists in
collisions with motor vehicles (see bmj.com) show helmet laws increased the
risk of death or serious head injury relative to the risk for pedestrians
and the amount of cycling. This implies helmet laws are counterproductive."

http://www.pulsus.com/Paeds/09_05/mok_ed.htm

"The results indicate that risk compensation may modify the effectiveness of
PE (protective Equipment) for children engaged in sports and leisure
activities."

Look, it is plain that a helmet can add a certain level of safety. But this
level is extremely low. But the fact is that of those 70,000 "head" injuries
a year there are 20%-30% of them that a helmet could certainly modify from a
"minor" injury - meaning level 2 concussion or below - to little or no
injuries.

What I'm saying is that there is sufficient evidence that helmets are
worthwhile for those who CHOOSE to wear one because most accidents are minor
to begin with and helmet are effective in reducing the injuries in a minor
accident.

Sadly this last weekend at the Fremont Freewheelers century a 52 year old
man riding down the Palomares hill reportedly only 20 miles from the end,
fell off of his bike struck his head and died. Pretending that a helmet will
make up for good sense, care or ability is a recipe for disaster. I only
point this out because this was the IDEAL conditions in which a helmet
should have had a measureable effect if helmets were effective enough to
tout like they are being touted. No motor vehicle was involved and apprently
no other bicycle was involved aside from the possibility that he touched a
wheel.

Let us assume that a helmet COULD make some small difference in death or
serious injury rates - the statistics have about a 10% error rate so let us
assume that of the 700 deaths and 2,500 serious injuries we could save 70
lives and reduce 250 serious injuries to something less. To do so would have
cost us tens of millions of dollars in advertising, safety programs, posters
in every school, every bicycle shop, every place where a cyclist might see
it and actually pay attention to it.

Do you realize that of ALL of the deaths in the USA each and every year,
only 4% of them are due to ALL accidents combined? Are you aware that
bicycling accidents are SO small that the deaths related to bicycle
accidents aren't even listed in the accident statistics used by the
government?

Are you aware that there are some 20,000 deaths in the USA each and every
year by accidental overdose of illegal drugs? And there are plenty of people
here who think not one second about using illegal drugs often.

Are you aware that there are 100,000 deaths each year from the effects of
JUST alcohol? That's aside from the other 25,000 motor vehicle deaths in
which alcohol plays a less than major role.

So exactly what is with the people who feel the need to save AT THE MOST
some 70 people a year and reduce the level of injuries of perhaps another
250? And let's remember that 99% of the "serious" injuries return to
effective normal.

If you WANT to wear a helmet by all means do so. If you feel the need to
convince others to wear a helmet perhaps you ought to see a psychiatrist.

Did a helmet manufacture, or an affiliate, pay for this "research"???

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

Quoted message said:

Here is an opportunity for the anti-helmet folks to get something through
their thick skulls. Have fun, but I'm not sticking around.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/481959/skull_study_proves_bike_helmets_work/index.html?source=r_health

-Les Earnest

who gives a [censored] about safety. Helmets LOOK COOL. Check out Garzelli

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/mar06/msr06/index.php?id=sirotti_msr121

Les,

Are you "off on a vacation to Fiji again"?

1. The article you post and then run away from, is a poster child for how
to flunk a Statistics exam.

2. Speaking from personal experience:
- in March 2001, I was run over by a Camaro Z28
- I was not wearing a helmet because I never want to feel safe when
I workout
- My head never hit anything because I have always practiced:
- how to properly react if I do get hit
- tumbling so I know how to click-out, bounce, tumble, roll and
protect if I do get hit

Let's go for a ride and talk,

John Bickmore
303-695-6467

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

Quoted message said:

Here is an opportunity for the anti-helmet folks to get something
through their thick skulls. Have fun, but I'm not sticking around.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/481959/skull_study_proves_bike_helmets_w
ork/index.html?source=r_health

Quoted message said:

-Les Earnest

That baby is the size of a watermelon!!!

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

Quoted message said:

who gives a [censored] about safety. Helmets LOOK COOL. Check out Garzelli

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/mar06/msr06/index.php?id=sirotti_msr121

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:22:43 -0400, "Charles" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

About helmets... apply Darwinism here.

The Darwinism comment. A true sign of idiocy.

JT

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

home experiment

1 - Get on your knees
2 - Bang your head on the ground whilst wearing a helmet and then whilst
not.
3 - If it hurts less in the former state then wear a helmet.
4 - If it hurts less in the latter state then don't wear a helmet.
5 - Regardless of the result have anice time

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

Quoted message said:

Here is an opportunity for the anti-helmet folks to get something through
their thick skulls. Have fun, but I'm not sticking around.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/481959/skull_study_proves_bike_helmets_work/index.html?source=r_health

-Les Earnest

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

Quoted message said:

who gives a [censored] about safety. Helmets LOOK COOL. Check out Garzelli

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/mar06/msr06/index.php?id=sirotti_msr121

Man! That thing is the best argument yet against helmets! I've seen others
compare it to Marvin the Martian from the Bugs Bunny cartoons.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

who gives a [censored] about safety. Helmets LOOK COOL. Check out Garzelli

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/mar06/msr06/index.php?id=sirotti_msr121

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Man! That thing is the best argument yet against helmets! I've seen others
compare it to Marvin the Martian from the Bugs Bunny cartoons.

Helmets create jobs. Someome has to design and manufacture the things. Well
on second thought, maybe not. We will need fewer doctors and Paramedics.

jim said:

home experiment

1 - Get on your knees
2 - Bang your head on the ground whilst wearing a helmet and then whilst
not.
3 - If it hurts less in the former state then wear a helmet.
4 - If it hurts less in the latter state then don't wear a helmet.
5 - Regardless of the result have anice time

I couldn't tell the difference, but it was easier to crack my driveway
without the helmet. This implies that the helmet DOES absorb some of the
impact.

On 28 Apr 2006 18:04:15 -0700, "Bill C" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Once they are over 18, then they should have free choice, but
insurance companies shouldn't have to pay for head injuries incurred
while not wearing a helmet, and if the state pays, then the tax
returns, if any, should be taken until the cost is payed off.
Freedom always comes with cost, and responsibility.
Bill C

Bill, I don't give a damn who wears a helmet, but I did do the numbers
on capitated coverage in an inner city, and closely, as in making a
mistake meant the difference between being in business and not. The
tax payers do NOT have to worry about the impact of people riding
bikes without helmets. They DO have to worry about the costs of AIDS,
diabetes, emphysema, and other diseases, because they happen every day
and to a large portion of the population especially those that have no
medical coverage.

While I will not argue that a person that rides a bike without a
helmet is safer than one that rides with a helmet, I will argue that
the potential impact on long term health costs of a person that rides
a bike with or without a helmet is positive compared to sitting on a
couch, eating a Big Mac, washing it down with a soda and staring at a
tv. Guess which one happens more often?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:22:43 -0400, "Charles" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

About helmets... apply Darwinism here.

The Darwinism comment. A true sign of idiocy.

JT

Not least of which because it is being misapplied on so many levels.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 01:00:59 -0400, "Charles" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Helmets create jobs. Someome has to design and manufacture the things. Well
on second thought, maybe not. We will need fewer doctors and Paramedics.

No, not really. We occasionally get a psuedo-EMT on the lists that
tells about all of the helmetless bicycle riders he or she hauls into
the emergency room, but I've found no emergency clinic that claims
such stats. Talk to an EMT at the next bike race and ask him how many
of his or her runs are for bike riders. Check out the traffic in the
local area - see how many are for bike riders. Stop at a sports or
long term treatment facility and see how many are there due to
helmetless bike riding. Damn few.

No, the EMTs are rushing to auto accidents, heart attacks, falls in
the bathtub, failure to breathes, on and on. Most of the bike
incidents? Small kids, helmet or no.

Long term care? Auto accidents, seizures, brain damage as a secondary
or tertiary situation of another medical incident. Damn few from
riding without a helmet.

Go back to your war, but try real targets.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell a écrit :

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 01:00:59 -0400, "Charles" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Helmets create jobs. Someome has to design and manufacture the things. Well
on second thought, maybe not. We will need fewer doctors and Paramedics.

No, not really. We occasionally get a psuedo-EMT on the lists that
tells about all of the helmetless bicycle riders he or she hauls into
the emergency room, but I've found no emergency clinic that claims
such stats. Talk to an EMT at the next bike race and ask him how many
of his or her runs are for bike riders. Check out the traffic in the
local area - see how many are for bike riders. Stop at a sports or
long term treatment facility and see how many are there due to
helmetless bike riding. Damn few.

No, the EMTs are rushing to auto accidents, heart attacks, falls in
the bathtub, failure to breathes, on and on. Most of the bike
incidents? Small kids, helmet or no.

Long term care? Auto accidents, seizures, brain damage as a secondary
or tertiary situation of another medical incident. Damn few from
riding without a helmet.

Go back to your war, but try real targets.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

I have no intuition, but I'll bet you can find better data, from which
to derive opinions, from countries with national health insurance. In
such an envirionment, people feel very free to use hospital facilities,
as there is not going to be a big charge. This would pick up data on
the scrapes and bruises that may go unreported in the US. Don't know.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy

Sandy said:

I have no intuition, but I'll bet you can find better data, from which
to derive opinions, from countries with national health insurance. In
such an envirionment, people feel very free to use hospital facilities,
as there is not going to be a big charge. This would pick up data on
the scrapes and bruises that may go unreported in the US. Don't know

EMT runs and emergency room reports are the U.S. equivalent of
national health care in many areas. Many emergency rooms are not
permitted to turn away a real case and one of the issues that I dealt
with was a tendency for people in inner city Baltimore to use the
emergency room rather than the health clinic (which raised expenses
pretty much all the way around). So if you are talking about incidents
requiring treatment, the e-room is a good barometer, at least in an
urban setting.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sandy said:

I have no intuition, but I'll bet you can find better data, from which
to derive opinions, from countries with national health insurance. In
such an envirionment, people feel very free to use hospital facilities,
as there is not going to be a big charge. This would pick up data on
the scrapes and bruises that may go unreported in the US. Don't know

EMT runs and emergency room reports are the U.S. equivalent of
national health care in many areas. Many emergency rooms are not
permitted to turn away a real case and one of the issues that I dealt
with was a tendency for people in inner city Baltimore to use the
emergency room rather than the health clinic (which raised expenses
pretty much all the way around). So if you are talking about incidents
requiring treatment, the e-room is a good barometer, at least in an
urban setting.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

It is difficult to compare US health care statistics with national health
systems. In many industrialized countries with national health coverage
(most industrialized western countries) people are probably not only more
likely to go to a hospital for treatment, they are also more likely to go to
a primary care physician as well. Most of the poor, working poor and others
in the US with no coverage frequently use the ER as their primary point of
medial care. I'd be interested to see the statistical differences whether
related to cycling injuries or not.