Any helmet laws successfully overturned?

[John Bartley K7]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:16:25 GMT, 6212hgk{invert}@newsguy.com (John Bartley K7AAY
(ex-KGH2126)) wrote:
>>>>Please also visit brainplace.com, where a pediatric psychiatrist uses brain scans to prove small
>>>>head trauma can have drastic impact on skils, abilities and temprament.

>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:24:09 -0500, Kevan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Since head injuries can occur at any time or place, perhaps we should all wear foam hats all
>> >the time.

Or, perhaps, soften the edges of our environment.

>> >But what's that? People who bicycle are more likely to get head injuries than those who don't?
>> >Ahh, now it's a different subject. Prove it.

Please indicate where in the above I made the assertion. Use a #2 pencil and stay between the lines.

>"Jasper Janssen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Playing soccer or american football, let alone rugby or aussie rules, in gym class is probably a
>> much bigger risk.

Yep. That's what Dr Amen says. Go watch Muhammed Ali for details.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:20:23 -0700, "one of the six billion" <[email protected]> wrote:
>A lifetime of eating at McDonalds is probably an even bigger risk.
<snip>

Risk to mental functioning? That was the thread, not risk to lifespan. You seem to be engaging in
topic drift.

--
Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston,
THE COBRA EVENT.

 

[Michael Davis]

"Doug Huffman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Now there's a terse argument! So terse that it is a valueless appeal to authority. I guess that I
> need to reinstate my filter against this anile topic. ...
snip

Nice word, anile. Perhaps not pc, but nice nonetheless.

Of or like an old woman, old-womanish; imbecile

 

[Dorre]

Michael Davis <[email protected]> wrote:
: [email protected] (Michael Malak) wrote in message
: news:<[email protected]>...
:> Australia's helmet law caused a 36% decrease in ridership in chidlren.
:> http://www.general.monash.edu.au/muarc/rptsum/ab32.htm

:> Everyone has different perceptions and tolerances of risk. When the cost/benefit ratio of a
:> safety behavior is in question, the government has no right to demand it.

: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5204a1.htm

They say: "Motor-vehicle crashes, falls, and assaults were the leading causes of injury for
TBI-related discharges (27.9, 22.5, and 7.3/100,000 respectively)." [TBI=traumatic brain injury]

and later: "An estimated 46% of injured motor-vehicle occupants, 53% of motorcyclists, and 41% of
pedal cyclists reportedly were not using personal protective equipment (PPE) (e.g., seat belts or
helmets) at the time of their TBI. "

This suggests that 59% of cyclists suffering traumatic brain injjury were wearing helmets at the
time. I can't believe than 59% or more of all cycling activity is by riders wearing helmets.
Therefore, taken at face value, this would imply that helmet wearers are more likely to suffer TBI
than non-wearers!

The estimate of only 41% not wearing helmets may well be wrong. (I haven't read the details of the
report.) But the other information is probably OK - "Motor-vehicle crashes, falls, and assaults were
the leading causes of injury for TBI-related discharges.

Worrying about these major causes of TBI would do far more for public health than laws about cycle
helmet wearing.

Dorre

 

[Doug Huffman]

THANK YOU!!! Thank you very much for using a good dictionary. Thank you.

It is a great non-PC word for a painfully 'PC topic. People may wear a hell-mutt or not but must
know why they are or are not. The vast bulk of cyclists and especially American cyclists are too
stupid to adequately evaluate the costs/benefits of hell-mutt use.

The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

"Michael Davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Doug Huffman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Now there's a terse argument! So terse that it is a valueless appeal to authority. I guess that
> > I need to reinstate my filter against this
anile
> > topic. ...
> snip
>
> Nice word, anile. Perhaps not pc, but nice nonetheless.
>
> Of or like an old woman, old-womanish; imbecile

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Michael Davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> : [email protected] (Michael Malak) wrote in message
> : news:<[email protected]>...
> :> Australia's helmet law caused a 36% decrease in ridership in chidlren.
> :> http://www.general.monash.edu.au/muarc/rptsum/ab32.htm
>
> :> Everyone has different perceptions and tolerances of risk. When the cost/benefit ratio of a
> :> safety behavior is in question, the government has no right to demand it.
>
> : http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5204a1.htm
>
> They say: "Motor-vehicle crashes, falls, and assaults were the leading causes of injury for
> TBI-related discharges (27.9, 22.5, and 7.3/100,000 respectively)." [TBI=traumatic brain injury]
>
> and later: "An estimated 46% of injured motor-vehicle occupants, 53% of motorcyclists, and 41% of
> pedal cyclists reportedly were not using personal protective equipment (PPE) (e.g., seat belts or
> helmets) at the time of their TBI. "
>
> This suggests that 59% of cyclists suffering traumatic brain injjury were wearing helmets at the
> time. I can't believe than 59% or more of all cycling activity is by riders wearing helmets.

In my area, I'll bet that helmet usage is over 70% by riders on the main roads, and may be 80%. The
percentage of kids around the neighborhood is lower than that, but not dramatically so.

> Therefore, taken at face value, this would imply that helmet wearers are more likely to suffer TBI
> than non-wearers!

Which makes no sense, so recheck your assumptions. There are a few possible confounding
circumstances, though. One is that the people who put in the most miles may wear their helmet more
consistently than occasional riders. Another one is that people who ride faster (and therefore are
likely to have a more severe impact if they crash) may be more likely to wear helmets. That
definitely is my observation around here. I very rarely see any "serious" riders (judging by their
bikes and equipment) riding without a helmet.

....

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

 

[Pete]

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote
>
> Which makes no sense, so recheck your assumptions. There are a few possible confounding
> circumstances, though. One is that the people who put in the most miles may wear their helmet more
> consistently than occasional riders.

And those people with more miles should, by virtue of experience, be better riders. *Less*
likely to crash.

Pete

 

[Archer]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote
> >
> > Which makes no sense, so recheck your assumptions. There are a few possible confounding
> > circumstances, though. One is that the people who put in the most miles may wear their helmet
> > more consistently than occasional riders.
>
> And those people with more miles should, by virtue of experience, be better riders. *Less* likely
> to crash.

Less likely *per mile*, but with enough extra miles, they are going to have more crashes overall. A
guy who puts in 30 miles per day, every day has a lot more chance of crashing in any given year than
a kid who rides only 1 block to his friends house twice in a year.

--
David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:20:23 -0700, "one of the six billion" <[email protected]> wrote:

>A lifetime of eating at McDonalds is probably an even bigger risk. Combine that with the number of
>hours sat in front of a television (just the sitting, let alone the effects of the content) and you
>have a much greater cause of shortened lifespans.

Oh please. Both McDonalds and TV have so far influenced the average age so far into the stratosphere
that in a decade or so 40% of our population will be above retirement age, and we'll have serious
problems paying for their pensions and most especially healthcare (all Western civilisations will
have to deal with this, one way or another). The genetic factor and simply how rich you are are much
bigger effects.

By the way, it's nice to hear the self-righteous "TV is bad" ******** from someone who spends
probably at least an hour a day sitting behind the *other* CRT device.

Jasper

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:11:35 -0500, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Thanks for taking the time to post that. It was interesting reading.

De nada, Pat - there's a longer discussion here: <http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm>

The U-shaped curves of crash probability vs. deviation from median speed are particularly
interesting (but remember that low speeds are usually associated with manoeuvring).

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

 

[Dorre]

archer <ns_archer1960@ns_hotmail.com> wrote:
: In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
:>
:> "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote
:> > Which makes no sense, so recheck your assumptions. There are a few possible confounding
:> > circumstances, though. One is that the people who put in the most miles may wear their helmet
:> > more consistently than occasional riders.

Most people understand helmet wearing rates to be the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets in
street counts or other observational surveys. This should be pretty close to the proportion of
miles ridden by helmeted cyclists. The chances of being counted in such a survey are more or less
proportional to the amount the rider cycles.

My guess is that the claim in that paper that only 41% of TBI
happen to non-helmeted cyclists isn't correct. But it's only a guess.

There is a school of thought that a glancing blow to the helmets can deliver a rotational force
to the head. A study of squirrel monkeys showed just how damaging rotations of the brain can be.
Gennarelli et al, (1972) subjected 12 to linear acceleration with peak levels 665-1230 g, and 13
primarily to rotational acceleration in the range of 348 to 1025 g. Contact phenomina were
minimised by the design of the apparatus producing the head acceleration. Non of those subjected
to the linear acceleration were concussed, whereas all 13 receiving rotational acceleration
suffered concussion, and the group showed a high incidence of subdural haematoma, subarachnoid
haemorrhage and intracerebral petechial haemorrhage.

I don't know if the above is important or not, but I do know that when helmet laws were
introduced in Australia and millions of cyclists were forced to wear healmets, there was no
obvious' effect on the rate of head injuries.

So, if helmet laws don't work, it would be a good thing to repeal them and allow cyclist freedom
of choice. As you suggest, the main factors determining the risk of head injury are not whether
you wear a helmet, but how you ride, where you ride, and how likely you are to be hit by a motor
vehicle. Nearly all serious TBI result from bike/motor vehicle crashes. The best way a cyclist
can avoid TBI is therefore to reduce this risk by obeying traffic laws, using lights at night,
riding predicably and, if necessary, avoiding routes with high-speed, erratic or irresponsible
motoritsts.

Dorre

:> And those people with more miles should, by virtue of experience, be better riders. *Less* likely
:> to crash.

: Less likely *per mile*, but with enough extra miles, they are going to have more crashes overall.
: A guy who puts in 30 miles per day, every day has a lot more chance of crashing in any given year
: than a kid who rides only 1 block to his friends house twice in a year. David Kerber An optimist
: says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord, it's morning".

: Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.