Are Helmets Completely Worthless as a Safety Device for a Bike Commuter?



On Mar 5, 1:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 5, 1:52 pm, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This quantifies the non-reported crash data in which helmets made a
> difference.  The quantity was zero.

This doesn't make logical sense, Frank. Even considering the source.

E.P.
 
>>> Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Because a helmet's protection is not at that end of the scale. If the
>>>> impact is enough to cause death, it very greatly exceeds the level of
>>>> protection the helmet was designed for.

>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>> I think you are still missing a key point here. Is the impact required
>>> to cause death greater with a helmet or without? If it is greater with
>>> a helmet, we should see an improvement regarding fatality stats.

> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fatality rates have often fallen as helmet use has increased. You may be
>> expecting a linear decline of fatalities with increasing helmet usage,
>> but that's unrealistic for several reasons:
>> 1. Many helmets are worn improperly. It's not a small percentage either.
>> 2. There are multiple variables that contribute to accident rates.
>> Populations change, facilities change, etc. As Jay wrote about Portland,
>> "Ridership in Portland has tripled since the law, and the injury rate
>> has dropped." Yet I don't think anyone would conclude that the law was
>> the sole reason for either change, even though it probably contribted to
>> the drop in injuries.
>> 3. The number of fatalities is so small to begin with that you can't get
>> good statistical data. An small increase in the absolute numbers may may
>> be a huge percentage difference, but it's statistically insignificant.

[email protected] wrote:
> 1) So helmets don't work because "not a small percentage" are worn the
> wrong way? Why would this failure show up in whole population data,
> but not in small studies?
>
> 2) Why do all theoretical changes invariably conceal the predicted
> significant effect of helmets in whole population data?
>
> 3) If you can't get good statistical data in the largest possible
> population, why cite small studies where the data would presumably be
> even less visible?


Plenty of riders wear helmets backwards. Even the girls at the ice cream
shop across the street notice that our rental bike customers are more
likely than not to flip 'em around. (despite bright yellow 'front'
written on the rim of the styrofoam).

What possible difference could that make? Impact and fashion aspects are
roughly equal no matter how it's oriented.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
On Mar 5, 3:08 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Actually there aren't any claims that bicycle helmets prevent deaths at
> the higher end of the impact scale. This is a fabrication of the AHZs.
> Well maybe some person has made such a claim, but I don't recall ever
> seeing one in all the years of the helmet debates.

:) To be charitable, your recall must be very poor.

But I've stood in front of a state legislative committee to counter
claims that helmets prevent large numbers of deaths due to impacts
with cars - which, are, after all, responsible for ove 90% of cyclist
fatalities, rare as they are.

In fact, during that attempt at passage of a MHL, proponents had
widely distributed a newspaper article, claiming a particular 12-year-
old boy would have not died "If Only He Had Worn His Stupid
Helmet." (That was the headline in our paper.) The boy died in a
head-on collision with a Chevy Blazer, caused by his riding facing
traffic.

So don't say there aren't any such claims.

>
> The reason MHLs get passed ...

You've never fought a MHL, Steven. You don't know. You are _not_ an
"expert."

- Frank Krygowski
 
Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Mar 5, 10:02 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <huge snip>
>
>> If Burkholder used the reasons Frank has come up with over the
>> years for his opposition, with the same reliance on junk science, then
>> it's not surprising that the law got enacted.
>
> Just for clarification, Burkholder, IIRC, was more concerned with the
> MHL's focus on equipment rather than driver responsibility or
> bicyclist education -- which he saw as more important issues.

While those are more important issues, they've been seemingly impossible
to address. There is no political will to spend money on bicyclist
education, nor does it seem that many bicyclists are willing to become
educated. Ditto for driver responsibility.

There has never been any indication that ridership has suffered as the
result of an MHL. This doesn't mean that MHLs are a good idea, just that
fighting them with myths of reduced ridership is probably futile.
 
A Muzi wrote:

> Plenty of riders wear helmets backwards. Even the girls at the ice cream
> shop across the street notice that our rental bike customers are more
> likely than not to flip 'em around. (despite bright yellow 'front'
> written on the rim of the styrofoam).
>
> What possible difference could that make? Impact and fashion aspects are
> roughly equal no matter how it's oriented.

Wearing a helmet improperly is not limited to wearing it backwards. The
most usual mistake is to have it tilted far back on the head so the
forehead is exposed, rather than having it level. Another issue is that
often the retention straps are not adjusted properly.

Similar problems are present in child car seats, where some estimates
are as high as 80% that are incorrectly fastened into the car.
 
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:08:32 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>We're all on the same side here, in opposing MHLs. Some of us are able
>to do it using real world data, statistics, and real science. Others
>make statements about gardening helmets, gas masks, walking helmets,
>driving helmets, and foam hats. We all know who will be taken seriously
>at public hearings on mandatory helmet laws.

Public hearings by legislators? They'll listen to the second group
without fail.
 
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:56:44 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Similar problems are present in child car seats, where some estimates
>are as high as 80% that are incorrectly fastened into the car.

Dues primarily to the fact that the instructions provided with the
seats are terrible. Only those with a mechanical engineering degree or
those with similar mindset ever figure it out correctly.

Bike helmets are a little easier, but people don't even try to read
those instructions.
 
On Mar 4, 5:53 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ron Ruff wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 4:22 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Ron Ruff wrote:
> >>> I've been in over 20 hard crashes at >20mph on road bikes and way
> >>> too many MTB crashes to count, plus a few nasty motorcycle crashes.
>
> >> You might be the worst rider on two wheels in the history of the
> >> universe. Time for a...trike?
>
> > I've been in several hundred races, Bill. How about you?
>
> God, I'm surprised they let you enter events as much as you crash.  (Butat
> least you're wearing a helmet to protect YOUR head.  Pity the other riders!)
> I've only been a roadie for ~4 years (23,000 miles), but I haven't had a
> single crash.  (Took my first and only fall a few weeks ago when my backup
> bike dropped a chain on a very steep hill; otherwise I haven't even hit the
> deck.)
>
> Mountain biking is a whole different story, but even then I haven't crashed
> much lately compared to the earlier years.
>
> BTW, Ron, I don't wear a helmet to save my life; I wear it to reduce the
> severity of or prevent injury.  It's done just that numerous (6-8 I'd guess)
> times during my mtb-ing days, out of probably 30 or more
> falls/crashes/wipeouts.  Your repeated references to "fatalities" is
> completely besides the point.
>
> HTH (BKIW)... BS

This is it Bill. Can you see it now... ? Or are you going to keep
claiming that I never said anything about racing?

I'm beginning to understand why you are so disturbed if someone
doesn't include the entire pages-long thread in their reply... you
don't seem to be able remember what you read or replied to for more
than a couple of minutes.
 
Ron Ruff wrote:
> On Mar 4, 5:53 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ron Ruff wrote:
>>> On Mar 4, 4:22 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Ron Ruff wrote:

>>>>> I've been in over 20 hard crashes at >20mph on road bikes and way
>>>>> too many MTB crashes to count, plus a few nasty motorcycle
>>>>> crashes.

{NOTE NO MENTION OF RACING}

>>>> You might be the worst rider on two wheels in the history of the
>>>> universe. Time for a...trike?

{BASED ON NO MENTION OF RACING, NOT THAT IT REALLY MATTERS}

>>> I've been in several hundred races, Bill. How about you?

{POSTED LATER -- SEE THE NUMBER OF >s}

>> God, I'm surprised they let you enter events as much as you crash.
>> (But at least you're wearing a helmet to protect YOUR head. Pity the
>> other riders!) I've only been a roadie for ~4 years (23,000 miles),
>> but I haven't had a single crash. (Took my first and only fall a few
>> weeks ago when my backup bike dropped a chain on a very steep hill;
>> otherwise I haven't even hit the deck.)
>>
>> Mountain biking is a whole different story, but even then I haven't
>> crashed much lately compared to the earlier years.
>>
>> BTW, Ron, I don't wear a helmet to save my life; I wear it to reduce
>> the severity of or prevent injury. It's done just that numerous (6-8
>> I'd guess) times during my mtb-ing days, out of probably 30 or more
>> falls/crashes/wipeouts. Your repeated references to "fatalities" is
>> completely besides the point.
>>
>> HTH (BKIW)... BS


> This is it Bill. Can you see it now... ? Or are you going to keep
> claiming that I never said anything about racing?

Ron, count the little > thingys.

You first posted (in a reply to Eddie P. I believe, long ago plonked, so I
only saw your reply) about all the crashes, so I said you must really suck.

*THEN* (enough emphasis for you???) you said that you've been in a zillion
races.

*THEN* I said I'm surprised they let you enter events given your penchant
for crashing.

GET IT NOW??? (You really can go back and read the thread; it won't kill
you unless you can't admit a mistake.)

> I'm beginning to understand why you are so disturbed if someone
> doesn't include the entire pages-long thread in their reply... you
> don't seem to be able remember what you read or replied to for more
> than a couple of minutes.

You're either stupid or a liar. I fear the worst.

Bill "someone else expalin it to him; I give up" S.
 
still just me wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:08:32 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> We're all on the same side here, in opposing MHLs. Some of us are able
>> to do it using real world data, statistics, and real science. Others
>> make statements about gardening helmets, gas masks, walking helmets,
>> driving helmets, and foam hats. We all know who will be taken seriously
>> at public hearings on mandatory helmet laws.
>
> Public hearings by legislators? They'll listen to the second group
> without fail.

LOL, I sometimes attend our city council meetings, and I don't think I'd
have the patience to be a council person and have to listen to some of
the wacky public input. The council has to be polite, but I've talked to
some of them outside the confines of the chambers where they are able to
say what they really think. If someone got up at a council meeting and
started up with gardening helmets, foam hats, etc., I think that the
council might lose control and break into uncontrollable laughter.
 
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:52:25 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 5, 9:44 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:20:33 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Mar 4, 6:07 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 17:49:17 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>>
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >On Mar 4, 5:04 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >> >> If the death rate doesn't drop significantly, then either the helmets
>> >> >> don't have a significant effect, or else the death rate is so tiny
>> >> >> that significant effects cannot be measured in the whole population,
>> >> >> making it extremely unlikely that they could be measured in much
>> >> >> tinier studies.
>>
>> >> >Except that the problem is this:  impacts that may cause death are
>> >> >grossly in excess of what helmets are meant to protect against.
>>
>> >> >The protection comes at the lower end of the injury scale.
>>
>> >> >E.P.
>>
>> >> Dear Ed,
>>
>> >> If helmets have offer some protection in crashes, why wouldn't they
>> >> reduce the number of deaths at the "lower end" of the fatal injury
>> >> scale, turning them from fatalities into serious injuries?
>>
>> >Because a helmet's protection is not at that end of the scale.  If the
>> >impact is enough to cause death, it very greatly exceeds the level of
>> >protection the helmet was designed for.
>>
>> Dear Ed,
>>
>> On your scale, what impacts lie between those that cause serious
>> injury and that you believe can be affected by helmets and those that
>> cause death and cannot?
>
>Why don't you tell me, Carl, since that seems to be where you're
>angling.

Dear Ed,

Because you made the claim, and I'm baffled, like other posters.

You seem to be claiming that there are two discontinuous areas on an
impact scale.

One range of impacts produces serious head injuries that can be
reduced or prevented by helmets, but not fatal injuries.

The other range, which you've likened to pistol bullets, produces
fatal injuries that cannot be reduced to serious injuries by helmets.

What range of impacts lies between them?

If it's any help to understanding why I'm baffled, far more
pedestrians are the victims of head injuries that range from serious
to fatal, just from ordinary trip-and-fall accidents.

I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
are unwilling to admit it, but you could easily explain what range of
impacts you have in mind and why you think that there's some huge gap
between the impact that leaves a pedestrian in the hospital and the
impact that kills him.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
On Mar 5, 4:41 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ron Ruff wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 5:53 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Ron Ruff wrote:
> >>> On Mar 4, 4:22 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Ron Ruff wrote:
> >>>>> I've been in over 20 hard crashes at >20mph on road bikes and way
> >>>>> too many MTB crashes to count, plus a few nasty motorcycle
> >>>>> crashes.
>
> {NOTE NO MENTION OF RACING}
>
> >>>> You might be the worst rider on two wheels in the history of the
> >>>> universe. Time for a...trike?
>
> {BASED ON NO MENTION OF RACING, NOT THAT IT REALLY MATTERS}
>
> >>> I've been in several hundred races, Bill. How about you?
>
> {POSTED LATER -- SEE THE NUMBER OF >s}
>
>
>
> >> God, I'm surprised they let you enter events as much as you crash.
> >> (But at least you're wearing a helmet to protect YOUR head. Pity the
> >> other riders!) I've only been a roadie for ~4 years (23,000 miles),
> >> but I haven't had a single crash. (Took my first and only fall a few
> >> weeks ago when my backup bike dropped a chain on a very steep hill;
> >> otherwise I haven't even hit the deck.)
>
> >> Mountain biking is a whole different story, but even then I haven't
> >> crashed much lately compared to the earlier years.
>
> >> BTW, Ron, I don't wear a helmet to save my life; I wear it to reduce
> >> the severity of or prevent injury. It's done just that numerous (6-8
> >> I'd guess) times during my mtb-ing days, out of probably 30 or more
> >> falls/crashes/wipeouts. Your repeated references to "fatalities" is
> >> completely besides the point.
>
> >> HTH (BKIW)... BS
> > This is it Bill. Can you see it now... ? Or are you going to keep
> > claiming that I never said anything about racing?
>
> Ron, count the little > thingys.
>
> You first posted (in a reply to Eddie P. I believe, long ago plonked, so I
> only saw your reply) about all the crashes, so I said you must really suck..
>
> *THEN* (enough emphasis for you???) you said that you've been in a zillion
> races.
>
> *THEN* I said I'm surprised they let you enter events given your penchant
> for crashing.
>
> GET IT NOW???  (You really can go back and read the thread; it won't kill
> you unless you can't admit a mistake.)
>
> > I'm beginning to understand why you are so disturbed if someone
> > doesn't include the entire pages-long thread in their reply... you
> > don't seem to be able remember what you read or replied to for more
> > than a couple of minutes.
>
> You're either stupid or a liar.  I fear the worst.
>
> Bill "someone else expalin it to him; I give up" S.

I did read the thread of course. The reason I posted this was because
you claimed that I'd never said anything about racing... when it was
the very last line in the post that you replied to thus:

>> God, I'm surprised they let you enter events as much as you crash.

You really should stick to verbal debating if you wish to use those
tactics, since your internet antics are recorded for anyone to view.
Of course it would take a great deal of effort for anyone to sift
through the mountains of verbage (attached over and over again), and
nobody cares to do that in order to learn something that is obvious
anyway...
 
On Mar 5, 8:58 pm, Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You really should stick to verbal debating if you wish to use those
> tactics, since your internet antics are recorded for anyone to view.

I think Bill's conclusively demonstrated that he'll never understand
that! ;-)

[I know, Bill - I TRIMMED!!!!! So I must have done it just to
confuse the one person who doesn't understand threaded
newsreaders!!!!]

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] aka Carl Fogel wrote:
> [...]
> I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
> are unwilling to admit it[...]

Here we go again.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
SMS aka Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
>
>> Plenty of riders wear helmets backwards. Even the girls at the ice
>> cream shop across the street notice that our rental bike customers are
>> more likely than not to flip 'em around. (despite bright yellow
>> 'front' written on the rim of the styrofoam).
>>
>> What possible difference could that make? Impact and fashion aspects
>> are roughly equal no matter how it's oriented.
>
> Wearing a helmet improperly is not limited to wearing it backwards. The
> most usual mistake is to have it tilted far back on the head so the
> forehead is exposed, rather than having it level. Another issue is that
> often the retention straps are not adjusted properly.[...]
>
Or forgetting the metal foil liner, so the rider becomes prey to alien
mind control: <http://eclectech.co.uk/mindcontrol.php>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
Jay Beattie wrote:
> [...]
> I have even made your argument that a helmet will not prevent you from
> getting a broken neck when hit by a Ford Taurus. [...]

What a large load of bull! [1]

[1] For the humor impaired, this a pun, not a comment on the post.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ron Ruff wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 4:22 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Ron Ruff wrote:
> >>> I've been in over 20 hard crashes at >20mph on road bikes and way
> >>> too many MTB crashes to count, plus a few nasty motorcycle crashes.
> >>
> >> You might be the worst rider on two wheels in the history of the
> >> universe. Time for a...trike?
> >
> > I've been in several hundred races, Bill. How about you?
>
> God, I'm surprised they let you enter events as much as you crash.

If you're not crashing, you're not trying.

--
Michael Press
 
[email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> [...]
> (BTW, I'm curious how you, as a BTA board member, "weighed in" on
> Oregon's proposed helmet law. I note that Oregon is one of the states
> that now has one for kids.)

Protect the baby goats!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dave K
Can bike helmets be seen as a form of paternalism and government overreach?
Replies
0
Views
15
Cycling Equipment
Dave K
Dave K
clyds paul
Can bike helmets be seen as a form of social control and conformity?
Replies
8
Views
48
Cycling Equipment
chick on wheels
chick on wheels
stuck
Can bike helmets increase visibility and awareness on the road?
Replies
7
Views
48
Cycling Equipment
Steve_in_NH
Steve_in_NH
Yvolution
Can bike helmets be worn with a face shield or visor?
Replies
11
Views
76
Cycling Equipment
brettm
brettm
Kevins745i
Can bike helmets be worn for cycling in extreme weather conditions?
Replies
16
Views
126
Cycling Equipment
fletch68
fletch68
Top Bottom Back