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



Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>>> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> 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.

>
>>> Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> How about a 36% drop? For teenagers it was over 50%.
>>>> http://www.roble.net/marquis/cached/agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html
>>>> Do you have any reason to claim that ridership did not drop anywhere?

>
>> clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>>> Drop in ridership among teenagers may have COINCIDED with helmet laws
>>> without being caused by them.
>>> Kids do not ride bikes for fun anymore. They do not ride bikes to
>>> school.
>>> Heck, they don't play outside any more in many large cities - even
>>> small cities and towns, because PLAYING is percieved as being unsafe.
>>> Being OUTSIDE is percieved as being unsafe.
>>> Kids get driven to school when they live less than 8 blocks from
>>> school. They "play" video games. Their exercise is all organized
>>> sports.
>>>
>>> At the elementary school a block from my home, where my now 25 and 26
>>> year old daughters went to school, there used to be 3 or 4 bike racks
>>> that would be FULL every spring and fall day. There are now twice as
>>> many students - with a whole field full of portable classrooms, and
>>> virtually no bicycles MHL was in effect when my kids went to school.
>>>
>>> Used to be a veritable troup of kids walking past the house to and
>>> from school. Now the street is packed with mini-vans and SUVs before
>>> and after school as concerned parents drop off and pick up their kids
>>> as close to the school as the law allows.
>>>
>>> At the highschool it's the same. Not too many bicycles, compared to
>>> years ago. More cars.
>>> And cars ARE more deadly to teanagers than bicycles.
>>> And those who DO ride bikes for fun and to school keep "junker bikes"
>>> to ride to school because good ones will be stolen or trashed when
>>> parked - by young thugs who have nothing better to do with their time.
>>> Even the junkers get the wheels bent and other parts torn off or
>>> trashed.
>>> ANd we live in a GOOD area.
>>> As a young guy I'd jump on my bike and with a bunch of friends ride
>>> off across town, or out of town a few miles to go hiking or fishing
>>> and think nothing of it. 50 mile trips (round trip)were fairly
>>> commonplace. We had no local transit, and most families only had one
>>> car so we walked or biked to school and back.
>>> I biked to and from work on the farm 6 miles out of town every weekend
>>> during the school year, and most weekends during the summer. Half the
>>> way was on a main highway - but the traffic was not nearly what it is
>>> today.

>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Sometimes the older days really were better (in my case late 1970's to
>> early 1980's).

>
>> It is too bad that people have not shown more restraint in breeding.
>> The world would be a much better place with only 1 to 2 billion people.

>
> That's not what we have to work with. Any good ideas from here?
> (growing tomatoes in the Sahara by mulching large numbers of humans may
> not actually be a workable solution)
>

Darn! ;)

> Back to topic, I delivered 25~35 bicycles on Christmas Eve and Christmas
> morning for many years but not a single one in this century. Kids don't
> ride now. My nieces attend a school district where bicycles are not
> allowed at school and that is no longer unusual.


Utterly ridiculous. I used to ride a bicycle [1] to school year around
in Wisconsin.

> Beyond, they aren't
> allowed to a park 2 blocks away without an adult. The goal of 'safety'
> is skewed to salacious and weird dangers which are in fact exceedingly
> rare and less common that ever in history. Bicycles are a mere symptom
> of larger social failings.


Will their parents go off to college with them, or accompany them to
their first job? Will they be able to feed themselves without assistance?

[1] Purchased from Andrew's shop, in fact.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
Clive George wrote:
> ...
> Cool. Thanks for that. I think we may have some slight differences of
> opinion, but they're minor enough to not worry about. Getting into a
> Judean People's Front situation is such a waste of time....


----------------------------------------------------------------------
You know what they say.
Some things in life are bad.
They can really make you mad.
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle,
Don't grumble. Give a whistle.
And this'll help things turn out for the best.
And...

Always look on the bright side of life.

Always look on the light side of life.

If life seems jolly rotten,
There's something you've forgotten,
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you're feeling in the dumps,
Don't be silly chumps.
Just purse your lips and whistle. That's the thing.
And...

Always look on the bright side of life.

Always look on the right side of life,

For life is quite absurd
And death's the final word.
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin.
Give the audience a grin.

Enjoy it. It's your last chance, anyhow.
So,...

Always look on the bright side of death,

Just before you draw your terminal breath.

Life's a piece of ****,
When you look at it.
Life's a laugh and death's a joke. It's true.
You'll see it's all a show.
Keep 'em laughing as you go.
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.
And...

Always look on the bright side of life.

Always look on the right side of life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
On Mar 6, 10:42 am, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I absolutely believe that Frank spins the available data to benefit
> his position.  I have seen him do it with other topics, and I'm not
> surprised he does it here.  


Anyone who claims I'm "spinning" the data should obviously post the
data they believe is correct, and let us all discuss it.

Scharf has been invited to do that countless times. In this thread
alone, it took about a dozen requests to get him to cite one paper. I
discussed that paper, pointing out some of its problems. The
discussion stopped.

> I doubt anybody really *knows* for certain
> how much protection a helmet can provide.  If folks don't wear them
> properly, then how can any data forthcoming from that be useful?  And
> how do medical professionals have any idea if the helmet was being
> worn properly?


There are two ways of looking at "improperly used" safety equipment,
whether we're talking about bike helmets, child seats in cars, or
whatever.

One way is to say, if the vast majority of intended customers use it
improperly, then the vast majority of customers are very dumb.

The other is to say, if the vast majority of intended customers use it
improperly, then it must be badly designed.

Although Human Factors Engineering is not my field, I know that Human
Factors specialists ascribe to the second view. Try reading _The
Human Factor_ by Kim Vicente, one of the field's experts.

>
> The case studies don't tell the whole story, and neither do the whole-
> population studies.  Especially when Franks says there was zero
> difference.  I mean, come on - helmets can help prevent scalp
> lacerations, right?  I think EVERYONE agrees about that.  Are we to
> believe that the injury rate, including lacerations and contusions,
> remained EXACTLY the same?


Yes, I think absolutely everyone agrees helmets can help prevent scalp
lacerations. You've apparently missed, or misunderstood, something.

Full population studies of helmet effects generally do not examine
things like minor scalp lacerations. They rarely study minor injuries
of any kind. This is because helmet promotion and helmet laws are not
based on prevention of minor injuries. Those promoting helmets claim
that they will reduce serious injuries and deaths.
For example, the paper I've discussed most thoroughly, by Scuffham,
was attempting to prove the claim that helmets would significantly
reduce hospitalizations.

What's intersting is that helmet promotional studies frequently use a
super-broad definition of "head injury" to arrive at inflated
claims. The infamous "85%" study (as well as others by that team)
counted cut ears, scratched chins, etc. as "head injuries." This
helped their numbers - and it seems many people haven't noticed the
exaggeration inherent in creative use of a poorly defined term.

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Mar 6, 7:04 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]>
>
> I wonder: *if* helmets were proven to be effective in reducing
> injuries (beyond scalp lacerations, etc.), if they offered a greater
> degree of protection, would you then look favorably on "helmet
> compulsion" for adult users?
>
> For myself, the answer is no, as I do not see this as a proper matter
> for government. But I am curious about what you and others might
> think.


I would still look unfavorably on compulsion for adult users for
several reasons.

First, a measure could be nearly 100% effective against a serious
injury, yet be practically useless if that injury were rare enough.
The easy example is bulletproof kevlar vests. Should we make all
adults wear them, to prevent harm from shots to the body? Of course
not. Too few adults will ever be shot, and the potential victims
shouldn't bear the penalty for others' bad behavior. Ditto for bike
helmets.

Second, even if a measure is quite effective against a likely harm, we
generally don't take away adult's freedom. For example, we don't
fight diabetes by forbidding certain types of diets. We don't outlaw
rock climbing. We should allow adults to choose their risks. (And we
shouldn't exaggerate those risks to fool them into the behavior we
want.)

And BTW, as a father, I believe parents should have the right to make
similar choices for their children, except in VERY extreme and unusual
cases. Bicycling is not one of the exceptions.

- Frank Krygowski
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:

> But I'm not going to let it bother me too much. Personally I get most head
> impacts at home - I would have saved myself some painful moments with a
> helmet (though could have had others instead), but that's what you get from
> having doors which are too low...
> (and you should see the scratches on my caving helmet - that's had quite a
> few dings too)


I would absolutely wear a helmet for caving. Close
quarters crawling guarantees heat bumps. Working under
a house is proof enough for me. "What's that over "
[Whack!] "there." Rock is hard; native rock has sharp edges.

--
Michael Press
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> People on foot trip, fall, hit their heads, and die, obviously with
> much lower impacts that seen in bicycle crashes. Whether the injury is
> fatal is often more a matter of unpredictable luck concerning what the
> head hits, which part of the head hits, and whether the head rotates,
> not whether the impact is gigantic.


I knew someone, young, healthy, standing talking to
friends felt faint, collapsed, struck her head on the
pavement, brain swelled up, she died, just like that.

--
Michael Press
 
On Mar 7, 12:07 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 6, 7:04 pm, Ozark Bicycle
> <[email protected]>
>
>
>
> > I wonder: *if* helmets were proven to be effective in reducing
> > injuries (beyond scalp lacerations, etc.), if they offered a greater
> > degree of protection, would you then look favorably on "helmet
> > compulsion" for adult users?

>
> > For myself, the answer is no, as I do not see this as a proper matter
> > for government. But I am curious about what you and others might
> > think.

>
> I would still look unfavorably on compulsion for adult users for
> several reasons.
>
> First, a measure could be nearly 100% effective against a serious
> injury, yet be practically useless if that injury were rare enough.
> The easy example is bulletproof kevlar vests.  Should we make all
> adults wear them, to prevent harm from shots to the body?  Of course
> not.  Too few adults will ever be shot, and the potential victims
> shouldn't bear the penalty for others' bad behavior.  Ditto for bike
> helmets.


Here, you have left off arguing that helmets are ineffective and taken
up the rarity of bicycling injuries. IMO, that's progress, but you
still are missing the central issue.
>
> Second, even if a measure is quite effective against a likely harm, we
> generally don't take away adult's freedom.


By George, I think he's got it!!!


> For example, we don't
> fight diabetes by forbidding certain types of diets.  We don't outlaw
> rock climbing.  We should allow adults to choose their risks.  (And we
> shouldn't exaggerate those risks to fool them into the behavior we
> want.)



Now, why not focus on this much broader, much more important issue
instead of prattling on about walking helmets, gasmasks, etc., etc.,
ad nauseum?


>
> And BTW, as a father, I believe parents should have the right to make
> similar choices for their children, except in VERY extreme and unusual
> cases.  Bicycling is not one of the exceptions.
>


What is your position on mandatory seatbelt use for chinldren (under,
say, age 12)?
 
"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:67c6b13e-c1ec-4f22-b3ba-2f1de2e1ba3c@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>I wonder: *if* helmets were proven to be effective in reducing
>injuries (beyond scalp lacerations, etc.), if they offered a greater
>degree of protection, would you then look favorably on "helmet
>compulsion" for adult users?
>
>For myself, the answer is no, as I do not see this as a proper matter
>for government. But I am curious about what you and others might
>think.


I'd certainly have more trouble arguing against it if they were proven to be
effective in that manner. But they haven't been.

For the record, I probably wouldn't ask for increased regulation of things
to do with bikes.

clive
 
On Mar 7, 7:19 am, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:67c6b13e-c1ec-4f22-b3ba-2f1de2e1ba3c@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I wonder: *if* helmets were proven to be effective in reducing
> >injuries (beyond scalp lacerations, etc.), if they offered a greater
> >degree of protection, would you then look favorably on "helmet
> >compulsion" for adult users?

>
> >For myself, the answer is no, as I do not see this as a proper matter
> >for government. But I am curious about what you and others might
> >think.

>
> I'd certainly have more trouble arguing against it if they were proven to be
> effective in that manner. But they haven't been.



But that was not the question. Would you look upon "helmet compulsion"
more favorably were helmets shown (or made) to be more effective?

>
> For the record, I probably wouldn't ask for increased regulation of things
> to do with bikes.



But you would "ask for increased regulation of things" in other
matters? Which other matters?
 
"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:bf681179-5fcf-4f19-9fd5-b5ef8b89d357@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 7, 7:19 am, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:67c6b13e-c1ec-4f22-b3ba-2f1de2e1ba3c@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >I wonder: *if* helmets were proven to be effective in reducing
>> >injuries (beyond scalp lacerations, etc.), if they offered a greater
>> >degree of protection, would you then look favorably on "helmet
>> >compulsion" for adult users?

>>
>> >For myself, the answer is no, as I do not see this as a proper matter
>> >for government. But I am curious about what you and others might
>> >think.

>>
>> I'd certainly have more trouble arguing against it if they were proven to
>> be
>> effective in that manner. But they haven't been.

>
>But that was not the question. Would you look upon "helmet compulsion"
>more favorably were helmets shown (or made) to be more effective?


Patience is a virtue, Ozark. I did answer the question in the paragraph
which followed. Look, here it is again:

>> For the record, I probably wouldn't ask for increased regulation of
>> things
>> to do with bikes.


>But you would "ask for increased regulation of things" in other
>matters? Which other matters?


You appear to be straying from the point. But I can't think of any off hand.
If they weren't regulated already, I'd probably ask for regulation on
nuclear bombs - wouldn't you?

clive
 
On Mar 7, 7:52 am, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:bf681179-5fcf-4f19-9fd5-b5ef8b89d357@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 7, 7:19 am, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> >>news:67c6b13e-c1ec-4f22-b3ba-2f1de2e1ba3c@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com....

>
> >> >I wonder: *if* helmets were proven to be effective in reducing
> >> >injuries (beyond scalp lacerations, etc.), if they offered a greater
> >> >degree of protection, would you then look favorably on "helmet
> >> >compulsion" for adult users?

>
> >> >For myself, the answer is no, as I do not see this as a proper matter
> >> >for government. But I am curious about what you and others might
> >> >think.

>
> >> I'd certainly have more trouble arguing against it if they were proven to
> >> be
> >> effective in that manner. But they haven't been.

>
> >But that was not the question. Would you look upon "helmet compulsion"
> >more  favorably were helmets shown (or made) to be more effective?

>
> Patience is a virtue, Ozark. I did answer the question in the paragraph
> which followed. Look, here it is again:
>
> >> For the record, I probably wouldn't ask for increased regulation of
> >> things
> >> to do with bikes.


Clarity and directness are virtues, Clive. Why did you feel the need
to cloud the answer with the "I'd have more trouble arguing against"
helmets smokescreen?


> >But you would "ask for increased regulation of things" in other
> >matters? Which other matters?

>
> You appear to be straying from the point. But I can't think of any off hand.
> If they weren't regulated already, I'd probably ask for regulation on
> nuclear bombs - wouldn't you?
>


Speaking of "straying from the point"! Nuclear bombs? GMAFB.

Either you favor government micro-management of our lives or you
oppose it. Where do you sit, Clive?
 
"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f37e204f-935f-41f6-b517-f675c3dfe578@m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 7, 7:52 am, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:bf681179-5fcf-4f19-9fd5-b5ef8b89d357@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 7, 7:19 am, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
> >> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> message

>>
>> >>news:67c6b13e-c1ec-4f22-b3ba-2f1de2e1ba3c@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>>
>> >> >I wonder: *if* helmets were proven to be effective in reducing
>> >> >injuries (beyond scalp lacerations, etc.), if they offered a greater
>> >> >degree of protection, would you then look favorably on "helmet
>> >> >compulsion" for adult users?

>>
>> >> >For myself, the answer is no, as I do not see this as a proper matter
>> >> >for government. But I am curious about what you and others might
>> >> >think.

>>
>> >> I'd certainly have more trouble arguing against it if they were proven
>> >> to
>> >> be
>> >> effective in that manner. But they haven't been.

>>
>> >But that was not the question. Would you look upon "helmet compulsion"
>> >more favorably were helmets shown (or made) to be more effective?

>>
>> Patience is a virtue, Ozark. I did answer the question in the paragraph
>> which followed. Look, here it is again:
>>
>> >> For the record, I probably wouldn't ask for increased regulation of
>> >> things
>> >> to do with bikes.

>
>Clarity and directness are virtues, Clive. Why did you feel the need
>to cloud the answer with the "I'd have more trouble arguing against"
>helmets smokescreen?


I didn't feel it clouded the answer, but instead added to it.

>> >But you would "ask for increased regulation of things" in other
>> >matters? Which other matters?

>>
>> You appear to be straying from the point. But I can't think of any off
>> hand.
>> If they weren't regulated already, I'd probably ask for regulation on
>> nuclear bombs - wouldn't you?
>>

>Speaking of "straying from the point"! Nuclear bombs? GMAFB.


You're the one who said "other matters". I mentioned one. I'm just following
down you stray path.

>>Either you favor government micro-management of our lives or you
>>oppose it. Where do you sit, Clive?


Depends on the issue. One man's micro-management is another man's necessary
regulation. I'm afraid there's no simple pat answer to your question here.

I'm guessing you're not actually against regulation of nuclear bombs, which
would imply you're not against the idea that government should be able to
regulate some aspects of our lives. There is room for discussion as to which
point that regulation turns into micro-management (I'm assuming
micro-management is shorthand for unnecessary unwanted inteference).
Obviously we agree that regulation of nukes is good, and enforcing helmets
is bad. Is there any particular need to discuss further details?

clive
 
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 13:52:30 -0000, "Clive George"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You appear to be straying from the point. But I can't think of any off hand.
>If they weren't regulated already, I'd probably ask for regulation on
>nuclear bombs - wouldn't you?
>
>clive


They'll get my nukes - when they pry them from my cold, dying hands!
 
Ed Pirrero wrote:

> I think the range of injury, and the level of protection is actually
> quite complicated, and that when you throw in the varying level of
> "proper wearing", you have a huge mess not easily sorted out. Even
> with sophisticated stat software.


If you look at the FARS data, normalized for the different level of
helmet usage, you do see a statistical benefit in fatalities in helmet
use. However you also see that while helmet wearers had a lower fatality
rate, they also had a higher rate of serious injuries. The logical
conclusion is that some of the fatalities of the non-helmet wearers
would have instead been serious injuries if they had been wearing a
helmet. These were not double-blind studies, they were simply accident
report data. The AHZ's response to the data is that the claimed level of
helmet use in the general population was underestimated, and thus the
injury and fatality data cannot be normalized based on helmet usage
rates. Certainly it's a possibility that helmet usage rates were not
accurately reported, though there is no evidence that this was the case.
It's not a perfect study, you get what you or you get nothing.

I'm an engineer, and I go by the data, and I realize that you may not
always get all the data you may want, and you may have to both
interpolate and use common sense. Yet as a libertarian at heart, I also
believe in letting people accept the level of risk that they are willing
to engage in. What I don't like to see is when people argue against
helmet use without providing any evidence at all, only criticisms of the
existing evidence.

I'd have more trouble arguing for helmets at all, if they were proven to
be completely ineffective. But they haven't been. No one has presented
any evidence that they are ineffective, only that their effectiveness is
limited, something that we all can agree on. Compulsory helmet laws
should be resisted because individuals should be free to choose to
accept the risk of not wearing a helmet, and this would be the case even
if helmets were more effective than they are.

Absent a double-blind study, the only statistics that support that
helmets reduce fatalities are the whole population studies, and the
reported accident data. If "risk compensation" were not allegedly at
work then the death rate for helmet wearers would be even less.

> I am a scientist by trade and by nature. When there is a lack of
> data, I may hypothesize, but I rarely find a conclusion.


See that's the difference between an engineer and a scientist. A
beautiful woman is waiting for you at the end of a football field and
you're allowed to run half the distance to her every 60 seconds. The
scientist immediately gives up, realizing he'll never reach her. The
engineer takes off running, figuring that he'll eventually get close enough.

We can all agree that:

a) There is a range of impacts where the helmet makes the difference
between injury and death, or minor injury and serious injury. The only
question is how wide that range is and how often impacts in that range
take place. There are extremely low impacts where a helmet may only
prevent some lacerations, and extremely high impacts wear death would
occur with or without a helmet.

b) If you are involved in a head impact crash you'll fare better with a
helmet than without one, except in crashes serious enough to cause death
no matter what.

c) Head impact crashes are sufficiently rare that riding without a
helmet does not present an undue risk.

d) Skilled riders are less likely to be involved in a head impact crash
than unskilled riders.

e) The perceived risk of unrelated activities has no bearing on the
protection that bicycle helmets provide or do not provide.

f) The number of accidents wear a helmet prevents serious injury or
death is sufficiently small that helmets should not be made compulsory.

g) Compulsory helmet laws give the impression that bicycling is more
dangerous than it actually is.

h) When speaking against compulsory helmet laws, take both your
audience's and your adversaries' frame of reference into consideration.
If you start up with driving helmets, gas masks, walking helmets, and
gardening helmets then you'll look like a fool, and lose, because the
other side will be using statistical data and emotion. You may think
that the statistical data is skewed, or that it doesn't present the
whole picture, but you'll have a hard time disputing it.
 
On Feb 20, 6:37 pm, "Jay" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear RBT Bike Experts:
>
> The only reason I would even consider wearing a helmet...is to attach steer
> horns, such as these:
>
> http://store.hornandleather.com/hl16br.html
>
>

Dear Usenet Administration:

Could you please cancel my thread? I think it has gone on long enough.
Everyone has had their say, and now it is time to move on to more
pressing bike business.

Thanks!

Your loyal Usenet customer - J.
 
Jay wrote:
> On Feb 20, 6:37 pm, "Jay" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dear RBT Bike Experts:
>>
>> The only reason I would even consider wearing a helmet...is to
>> attach steer horns, such as these:
>>
>> http://store.hornandleather.com/hl16br.html
>>
>>

> Dear Usenet Administration:
>
> Could you please cancel my thread? I think it has gone on long enough.
> Everyone has had their say, and now it is time to move on to more
> pressing bike business.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Your loyal Usenet customer - J.


That was pretty good.

Bill "******!" S.
 
SMS wrote:

> a) There is a range of impacts where the helmet makes the difference
> between injury and death, or minor injury and serious injury. The only
> question is how wide that range is and how often impacts in that range
> take place. There are extremely low impacts where a helmet may only
> prevent some lacerations, and extremely high impacts wear death would
> occur with or without a helmet.


Before the grammar and spelling police get to it, "wear" s.b. "where."
 
Jay wrote:
> On Feb 20, 6:37 pm, "Jay" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dear RBT Bike Experts:
>>
>> The only reason I would even consider wearing a helmet...is to attach steer
>> horns, such as these:
>>
>> http://store.hornandleather.com/hl16br.html
>>
>>

> Dear Usenet Administration:
>
> Could you please cancel my thread? I think it has gone on long enough.
> Everyone has had their say, and now it is time to move on to more
> pressing bike business.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Your loyal Usenet customer - J.


Okay, I've canceled it.
 
On Mar 7, 8:51 am, Jay <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 6:37 pm, "Jay" <[email protected]> wrote:> Dear RBT Bike Experts:
>
> > The only reason I would even consider wearing a helmet...is to attach steer
> > horns, such as these:

>
> >http://store.hornandleather.com/hl16br.html

>
> Dear Usenet Administration:
>
> Could you please cancel my thread? I think it has gone on long enough.
> Everyone has had their say, and now it is time to move on to more
> pressing bike business.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Your loyal Usenet customer - J.


Alternately, Mr. Administration, could you e-mail to Jay detailed
instructions on how to stop reading a thread in which he's not
interested? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Mar 7, 8:19 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you look at the FARS data, normalized for the different level of
> helmet usage, you do see a statistical benefit in fatalities in helmet
> use.


Is the FARS study online somewhere?

> If "risk compensation" were not allegedly at
> work then the death rate for helmet wearers would be even less.


Possibly. I think there is more than risk compensation going on.

> b) If you are involved in a head impact crash you'll fare better with a
> helmet than without one, except in crashes serious enough to cause death
> no matter what.


I think the odds are rather good that a helmet wearing person will
suffer a greater number of head injuries (ie their helmets will strike
the ground more often) compared to a non-helmet wearer. If it is a
matter of the same impact occuring with the same force, then a helmet
should provide some attenuation of the impact and the trauma to the
brain. But even that isn't certain in the case of rotational
impacts... in fact the helmet could make things worse. Also, I don't
think the solid head form which helmets are designed to protect is a
very good way to model a head, and they might even be a lot less
helpful with direct hits than they are perceived to be.