Another doctor questions helmet research

I don't get why anyone points this out any more. If you want to wear a
helmet wear one. If not don't. If you live in a country where it's the
law then talk to your legislators media and acquaintances.

Statistics have nothing to do with it at all. I could care less if I
have a 1 in 440 chance of killing myself with a helmet on or off. If
you think that if you hitting your head with your helmet off will hurt
less than hitting it with the helmet on, please do so repeatedly.

It's not brain sugery you know. Or is it?

steve

In article <[email hidden]>, JFJones

Quoted message said:

http://www.imt.ie/displayarticle.asp?AID=5724&NS=1&SID=1

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

Quoted message said:

I don't get why anyone points this out any more. If you want to wear a
helmet wear one. If not don't. If you live in a country where it's the
law then talk to your legislators media and acquaintances.

Statistics have nothing to do with it at all. I could care less if I
have a 1 in 440 chance of killing myself with a helmet on or off. If
you think that if you hitting your head with your helmet off will hurt
less than hitting it with the helmet on, please do so repeatedly.

It's not brain sugery you know. Or is it?

steve

Very well said, Steve.

Bob C.

steve said:

I don't get why anyone points this out any more. If you want to wear a
helmet wear one. If not don't. If you live in a country where it's the
law then talk to your legislators media and acquaintances.

ISTM that non-helmet-wearers see entire nations of
compulsory-helmet-wearers as a threat to their civil liberties. That's
why they rail against it, and compile stats designed to show it in
a bad light. But data can be selected and massaged to show anything,
of course.

--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo

steve wrote:

[regarding http://www.imt.ie/displayarticle.asp?AID=5724&NS=1&SID=1 ]

Quoted message said:

I don't get why anyone points this out any more. If you want to wear a
helmet wear one. If not don't. If you live in a country where it's the
law then talk to your legislators media and acquaintances.

Statistics have nothing to do with it at all. I could care less if I
have a 1 in 440 chance of killing myself with a helmet on or off. If
you think that if you hitting your head with your helmet off will hurt
less than hitting it with the helmet on, please do so repeatedly.

It's not brain sugery you know. Or is it?

People point this out because there's a tremendous amount of
misinformation being published by helmet promoters. The misinformation
makes people believe that bicycling is very dangerous, and that helmets
are very effective. Both ideas are wrong.

When people believe those mistaken ideas, people cycle less, and
legislators are easily convinced to make cycling illegal unless a helmet
is worn. And getting legislators to rescind an action based on false
premises is much harder than Steve seems to think. (WMD invasion, anyone?)

Furthermore, because of the misinformation, cyclists who are injured
through no fault of their own get attacked by motorist's lawyers for
doing something as "dangerous" as riding a bike, or for doing it with
the wrong style hat.

Anyone is free to wear a helmet if they choose, even if it's only
because they don't understand statistics. But it does seem a shame that
such a well-reasoned, well-documented letter as the one at
http://www.imt.ie/displayarticle.asp?AID=5724&NS=1&SID=1 would draw such
hostile, unthinking reaction.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski said:

Anyone is free to wear a helmet if they choose, even if it's only
because they don't understand statistics. But it does seem a shame that
such a well-reasoned, well-documented letter as the one at
http://www.imt.ie/displayarticle.asp?AID=5724&NS=1&SID=1 would draw such
hostile, unthinking reaction.

Postmodern society pays lipservice to rationality, but worships at the
altar of avoiding pain.

No weight of statistics nor empirical data will convince scared people
to go out and do what they've been told not to do. That requires an
irrational act of will.

My father won't ride his bicycle in the street because he's scared--no
matter how persuasive I am with the statistical arguments for accident
rates, visibility, etcetera.

I should make a full disclosure of my hypocrisy: I wear a helmet for
protection not entirely related to impact: it's big and white, and
fairly bright in most lighting conditions. I'd like to think it makes
me a bit more visible. And should anything bad happen to me, I'll
never get the miscreant to pay out unless I have one on, since
otherwise I'd be vulnerable to charges of contributory negligence.
All the rational argumentation in the world is for naught when you're
in front of ignorant people who are (even temporarily) empowered to
deny you justice.

=-Luigi

"Luigi de Guzman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My father won't ride his bicycle in the street because he's scared--no
matter how persuasive I am with the statistical arguments for accident
rates, visibility, etcetera.

I should make a full disclosure of my hypocrisy: I wear a helmet for
protection not entirely related to impact: it's big and white, and
fairly bright in most lighting conditions. I'd like to think it makes
me a bit more visible. And should anything bad happen to me, I'll
never get the miscreant to pay out unless I have one on, since
otherwise I'd be vulnerable to charges of contributory negligence.
All the rational argumentation in the world is for naught when you're
in front of ignorant people who are (even temporarily) empowered to
deny you justice.

Seeing as how people in general are just as convinced that riding a bicycle
on the street is suicide, do we have to worry about "contributory
negligence" because we were riding a bike?

Doug

Michael Warner said:

ISTM that non-helmet-wearers see entire nations of
compulsory-helmet-wearers as a threat to their civil liberties.

I see such people as more a threat to bicycling. It disturbs me greatly
when people portray cycling as SO dangerous that it's foolish to take a
neighborhood spin without protective headgear.

It disturbs me more when people believe that, and cycle less because of it.

Quoted message said:

That's
why they rail against it, and compile stats designed to show it in
a bad light. But data can be selected and massaged to show anything,
of course.

<Sigh> When someone makes that "data can show anything" argument, I
lament for the state of scientific education.

Certainly, one can _say_ data can show anything, just as one can say the
sun rises in the west. One must examine the data and conclusions and
resulting discussions to make an informed judgement about what's true
and what's not.

Some issues are pretty definite. A person saying the sun rises in the
west is easily proven wrong, and the discussion doesn't last long.
Other issues (like this one) are more complicated, and require more
thinking to understand.

Unfortunately, there's a large pool of people who stand to make money by
selling helmets, and another large pool of "safety missionaries" bent on
having everyone conform to their idea of risk. There's also a big
number of True Believers, who latch onto the first idea that comes their
way and never question it. These people greatly outnumber the pool of
people who love cycling, and have the scientific competentence to see
through the [censored].

Here's an example of some of the discussion, regarding a pro-helmet
paper published in a well-respected journal - but rife with mistakes.
Read on only if you're math-competent.

http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/9/3/266

[Note that the page shows letters in reverse cronological order. IOW,
start reading at the bottom.]

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Doug Purdy said:

"Luigi de Guzman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My father won't ride his bicycle in the street because he's scared--no
matter how persuasive I am with the statistical arguments for accident
rates, visibility, etcetera.

I should make a full disclosure of my hypocrisy: I wear a helmet for
protection not entirely related to impact: it's big and white, and
fairly bright in most lighting conditions. I'd like to think it makes
me a bit more visible. And should anything bad happen to me, I'll
never get the miscreant to pay out unless I have one on, since
otherwise I'd be vulnerable to charges of contributory negligence.
All the rational argumentation in the world is for naught when you're
in front of ignorant people who are (even temporarily) empowered to
deny you justice.

Seeing as how people in general are just as convinced that riding a bicycle
on the street is suicide, do we have to worry about "contributory
negligence" because we were riding a bike?

Depends on how good the other guys lawyer is.

"There he was balanced on two wheels, just asking for it."

"Have you ever fallen without being hit by my client?" Wait for answer.... "Well
there ya go."

"My client's dog could not have bitten him - he is toothless and was tied up in
the backyard. Furthermore, my client does not own a dog."

Ron

Frank Krygowski said:

steve wrote:

[regarding http://www.imt.ie/displayarticle.asp?AID=5724&NS=1&SID=1 ]

Quoted message said:

I don't get why anyone points this out any more. If you want to wear a
helmet wear one. If not don't. If you live in a country where it's the
law then talk to your legislators media and acquaintances.

Statistics have nothing to do with it at all. I could care less if I
have a 1 in 440 chance of killing myself with a helmet on or off. If
you think that if you hitting your head with your helmet off will hurt
less than hitting it with the helmet on, please do so repeatedly.

It's not brain sugery you know. Or is it?

People point this out because there's a tremendous amount of
misinformation being published by helmet promoters. The misinformation
makes people believe that bicycling is very dangerous, and that helmets
are very effective. Both ideas are wrong.

Hang on. I've seen lamentations that helmet proponents cannot
produce data to show that bicycle helmets are effective at preventing
injury.

Now that you've gone and claimed that bicycle helmets AREN'T
effective, I'd like to see YOUR data.

As a motorcyclist of some fifteen years, I believe in the ability
of a motorcycle helmet to reduce the impulse passed through to my
brain from a four-foot fall from the saddle to the pavement. On the
surface of it, I don't see any particular reason why the EPS foam in a
bicycle helmet would not offer at least *some* attenuation of the
impulse delivered to a bicyclist's brain, albeit perhaps less than
that provided by a motorcycle helmet.

--
Chris BeHanna
Software Engineer (Remove "allspammersmustdie" before responding.)
[email hidden]
I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs.

Chris BeHanna said:

Frank Krygowski said:

steve wrote:

[regarding http://www.imt.ie/displayarticle.asp?AID=5724&NS=1&SID=1 ]

Quoted message said:

I don't get why anyone points this out any more. If you want to wear a
helmet wear one. If not don't. If you live in a country where it's the
law then talk to your legislators media and acquaintances.

Statistics have nothing to do with it at all. I could care less if I
have a 1 in 440 chance of killing myself with a helmet on or off. If
you think that if you hitting your head with your helmet off will hurt
less than hitting it with the helmet on, please do so repeatedly.

It's not brain sugery you know. Or is it?

People point this out because there's a tremendous amount of
misinformation being published by helmet promoters. The misinformation
makes people believe that bicycling is very dangerous, and that helmets
are very effective. Both ideas are wrong.

Hang on. I've seen lamentations that helmet proponents cannot
produce data to show that bicycle helmets are effective at preventing
injury.

Now that you've gone and claimed that bicycle helmets AREN'T
effective, I'd like to see YOUR data.

Quick-and-dirty: have motorcyclist fatality rates over the past
fifteen years increased, declined, or remained the same?

Then: have cyclist fatality rates the past fifteen years increased,
declined, or remained the same?

-Luigi

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

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski said:

People point this out because there's a tremendous amount of
misinformation being published by helmet promoters. The misinformation
makes people believe that bicycling is very dangerous, and that helmets
are very effective. Both ideas are wrong.

Hang on. I've seen lamentations that helmet proponents cannot
produce data to show that bicycle helmets are effective at preventing
injury.

Now that you've gone and claimed that bicycle helmets AREN'T
effective, I'd like to see YOUR data.

Excuse me, but helmeteers are those who need to show data and not the
other way around. The idea that one inch of foamed plastic can save
anyone's life save on the sheerest of coincidence is pretty outrageous
and the lengths to which "studies" have gone to distort or misused
statistics seems to prove that point more than not.

Quoted message said:

As a motorcyclist of some fifteen years, I believe in the ability
of a motorcycle helmet to reduce the impulse passed through to my
brain from a four-foot fall from the saddle to the pavement.

Nice wording and JUST the sort of thing that I am discussing.

Something on the order of 95% of all bicycle fatalities (and
practically 100% of motorcycle fatalities) is due to collision with
motor vehicles at relatively high velocities (anything over 14 mph
combined speeds). In these accidents in almost every case there are
multiple fatal injuries to the victim.

One of the problems with gathering data on any sort of fatalities is
that the statistics are derived from death certificates generally
filled out by either emergency room personel or personal doctors.
These people are doing reams of paperwork all the time and simplify
their own tasks as much as possible. In this case they tend to put
only the most immediate cause of death on the death certificates and
so although the victim had his rib cage crushed and his heart
punctured, his spine broken in three places and excessive loss of
blood they will invariably write for cause of death, "head trauma".
Those of us who have seen some of these accidents also know that often
that "head trauma" was to the face and jaw since it is instinctual to
LOOK where you are flying.

While you might be able to say that a helmet works in a fall from the
seat to the ground, that is not the sort of accidents in which people
die.

It doesn't matter WHAT you choose to believe or what you choose to
wear, always be alert and remember that your actions can put you in
danger or save you every time you ride. Stay ALERT.

Chris BeHanna said:

Hang on. I've seen lamentations that helmet proponents cannot
produce data to show that bicycle helmets are effective at preventing
injury.

Now that you've gone and claimed that bicycle helmets AREN'T
effective, I'd like to see YOUR data.

As a motorcyclist of some fifteen years, I believe in the ability
of a motorcycle helmet to reduce the impulse passed through to my
brain from a four-foot fall from the saddle to the pavement. On the
surface of it, I don't see any particular reason why the EPS foam in a
bicycle helmet would not offer at least *some* attenuation of the
impulse delivered to a bicyclist's brain, albeit perhaps less than
that provided by a motorcycle helmet.

I guess I could say "see the archives," since this has been discussed in
these forums for over ten years. But I know that's unsatisfactory.
Many helmet posts are mindless schoolkid stuff ("You must not have a
brain to protect!!!"😉 and it would take you a long time to find the
wheat among the chaff, so to speak.

But before I point you to some sites, let me clarify something. AFAIK,
nobody questions the fact that bike helmets "offer at least *some*
attenuation," and that they also reduce minor injuries like scrapes and
bruises.

What seems to be true, though, is that their level of protection is very
low. This is confirmed by reading the certification standards.

They don't seem to reduce the serious head injuries per rider when they
are widely adopted. This has been seen by examining data from America,
New Zealand, and Australia. (The latter two have implemented and
enforced mandatory helmet laws for all ages, generating lots of data.)

They do seem to convince riders that they are super-protected, and lead
to riskier behavior. This is anecdotal, but the anecdotes abound.
("I'd never ride there without my helmet!"😉

Helmet promotion is based on two cornerstones: that cycling is extremely
dangerous regarding head injuries, and that helmets prevent 85% of those
injuries. Both ideas are clearly false. But helmet promoters
cheerfully use misleading information to advance their agenda. That
sounds harsh, but I can give examples of what I mean.

Some websites to get you started are: www.cyclehelmets.org, and the
"helmet FAQ" at http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ I'd suggest following a
couple dozen of the links, and reading some of the original research
papers on the topic. Once you've done that, we can continue the discussion.

Incidentally, the journal Injury Prevention currently has some online
discussion that will give you an example of how the debate runs in
places other than Usenet. Briefly, a paper was published by IP to prove
that, yes, helmets do help. But readers found mathematical, then
logical, errors in the paper that completely invalidated its
conclusions. The feedback explaining this is at
http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/9/3/266

still, based on past practice, I can almost guarantee that helmet
promoters will ignore the mistakes in the paper. That paper will be
cited by others as "proof" that helmets are wonderful.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

"Luigi de Guzman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 09:54:02 GMT, Chris BeHanna

Quick-and-dirty: have motorcyclist fatality rates over the past
fifteen years increased, declined, or remained the same?

Can't tell because putting in helmet laws have caused huge decreases in
motorcycle use and it's very difficult to get a handle on the differences
between the before and after law conditions. When I looked at it several
years ago it appeared to me that the rates of death increased with helmet
laws but that was probably because only the most daring riders were willing
to continue riding with helmets.

When Florida dropped their helmet law in 2001 there were predictions that
motorcycle fatalities would rise. They didn't.

When Australia and New Zealand introduced mandatory helmet laws there were
predictions that head injuries for bicyclists would demonstrate a reduction.
They didn't.

My conclusion is that the only real effect of a helmet for a motorcyclist or
a bicyclist is that it makes them feel safer and they tend to ride more
carelessly. This offsets any minor injury prevention a helmet may produce.

Quoted message said:

Then: have cyclist fatality rates the past fifteen years increased,
declined, or remained the same?

I've charted that out and you can reach your own conclusions:

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

There's a chart down the page that demonstrates the relationship between
bicyclists and pedestrians. Bell brought out the first bike helmet in about
'83 but because they looked so dorky they didn't start getting popular until
after 1990 and then they weren't that common until about '94 or so.

Note that during the time of these statistics helmets were invented and
becoming almost universally used by the vast majority of recreational riders
in the USA. I don't know where you live but in California seeing someone
without a helmet is quite unusual and I'd estimate that only about 5% of
bicyclists ride without helmets.

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

Quoted message said:

Incidentally, the journal Injury Prevention currently has some online
discussion that will give you an example of how the debate runs in
places other than Usenet. Briefly, a paper was published by IP to prove
that, yes, helmets do help. But readers found mathematical, then
logical, errors in the paper that completely invalidated its
conclusions. The feedback explaining this is at
http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/9/3/266

Well, that debate looks a lot like usenet to me.
Avery Burdett used to post here often, and was a frequent contributor to
helmet threads.
Guy Chapman is also a frequent poster to bicycle newsgroups; James Annan has
frequently posted there also.
That's 3 of the 5 articles in this debate (not counting the author's reply).
I'll let somebody else Google the other 2.

I'm not saying these guys are wrong, just that their views are hardly a
revelation.

Quoted message said:

From: "Tom Kunich"

Quoted message said:

Bell brought out the first bike helmet in about
'83 but because they looked so dorky they didn't start getting popular until
after 1990 and then they weren't that common until about '94 or so.

Bell Biker, around '77:

http://www.bhsi.org/biker.htm

Note old, weathered helmet testing "new". Ho ho ho.

Bell Bikers were (a few still still are!) very hot. Nasty (and dorky). Early
90's IMS, Bell (Image model) and others brought out non-lycra covered helmets
with vents. Still dorky, but comfy. I think that's when the swing towards
near-universal use occurred; no reason not to wear the thing as long as you got
them lycra britches on anyways.

Quoted message said:

My conclusion is that the only real effect of a helmet for a motorcyclist or
a bicyclist is that it makes them feel safer and they tend to ride more
carelessly. This offsets any minor injury prevention a helmet may produce.

This well applies to a rider segment that might also be presumed to be featured
more commonly in accident reports, helmet factor removed. Recent observations
reenforce. --TP

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Incidentally, the journal Injury Prevention currently has some online
discussion that will give you an example of how the debate runs in
places other than Usenet. Briefly, a paper was published by IP to prove
that, yes, helmets do help. But readers found mathematical, then
logical, errors in the paper that completely invalidated its
conclusions. The feedback explaining this is at
http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/9/3/266

Well, that debate looks a lot like usenet to me.
Avery Burdett used to post here often, and was a frequent contributor to
helmet threads.

Avery is a really good guy but he has a hard-on about helmets because of
dumb mandatory laws. Nevertheless he has gathered a lot of good material at
his site and it's worth looking at.

Luigi de Guzman said:

Quick-and-dirty: have motorcyclist fatality rates over the past
fifteen years increased, declined, or remained the same?

The word "rates" makes the answer complicated. See this article for
some interesting discussion.

http://www.forbes.com/fyi/99/0503/041.htm

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Mike Kruger said:

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

Quoted message said:

Incidentally, the journal Injury Prevention currently has some online
discussion that will give you an example of how the debate runs in
places other than Usenet. Briefly, a paper was published by IP to prove
that, yes, helmets do help. But readers found mathematical, then
logical, errors in the paper that completely invalidated its
conclusions. The feedback explaining this is at
http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/9/3/266

Well, that debate looks a lot like usenet to me.
Avery Burdett used to post here often, and was a frequent contributor to
helmet threads.
Guy Chapman is also a frequent poster to bicycle newsgroups; James Annan has
frequently posted there also.
That's 3 of the 5 articles in this debate (not counting the author's reply).
I'll let somebody else Google the other 2.

I'm not saying these guys are wrong, just that their views are hardly a
revelation.

I was hoping people would notice that the debate was quite detailed,
about specific mathematical points. And that the authors acknowledged
at least one rather glaring mistake in their work.

That debate is serious enough, and has enough mathematical depth and
scientific validity, that the journal treats it seriously and publishes
it online.

And unlike Usenet, there are no remarks like "Yeah? Well let me hit you
in the head with a two-by-four..." It really is at a much higher level.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Luigi de Guzman said:

Chris BeHanna said:

Frank Krygowski said:

steve wrote:

[regarding http://www.imt.ie/displayarticle.asp?AID=5724&NS=1&SID=1 ]

> I don't get why anyone points this out any more. If you want to wear a
> helmet wear one. If not don't. If you live in a country where it's the
> law then talk to your legislators media and acquaintances.
>
> Statistics have nothing to do with it at all. I could care less if I
> have a 1 in 440 chance of killing myself with a helmet on or off. If
> you think that if you hitting your head with your helmet off will hurt
> less than hitting it with the helmet on, please do so repeatedly.
>
> It's not brain sugery you know. Or is it?

People point this out because there's a tremendous amount of
misinformation being published by helmet promoters. The misinformation
makes people believe that bicycling is very dangerous, and that helmets
are very effective. Both ideas are wrong.

Hang on. I've seen lamentations that helmet proponents cannot
produce data to show that bicycle helmets are effective at preventing
injury.

Now that you've gone and claimed that bicycle helmets AREN'T
effective, I'd like to see YOUR data.

Quick-and-dirty: have motorcyclist fatality rates over the past
fifteen years increased, declined, or remained the same?

They have stayed the same; HOWEVER, during those fifteen years,
some states have repealed their helmet requirements while others have
imposed new helmet requirements. The comparison to motorcycle
statistics isn't going to tell you much. Even worse, the rates quoted
typically are not normalized per rider-mile.

FWIW, Harry Hurt found that helmeted motorcyclists were
underrepresented where head and neck injuries were concerned.

Quoted message said:

Then: have cyclist fatality rates the past fifteen years increased,
declined, or remained the same?

This is an entirely different question from the one I posed, in
part due to the same reason: stats often do not normalize per
rider-mile. Nonetheless, I would expect helmeted cyclists to be
underrepresented where head and neck injuries are concerned. I do not
know for sure if they are.

--
Chris BeHanna
Software Engineer (Remove "allspammersmustdie" before responding.)
[email hidden]
I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs.