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

[Ron Ruff]

On Mar 7, 3:08 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> LOL, so the enormous body of data that shows lower injury and fatality
> rates for those that wear helmets convinced you that there was no benefit?

Please present it or direct me to it. The *only* pro-helmet data I've
seen is from poor studies that obviously did not account for important
factors. Meanwhile *all* the population studies show no benefit.

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Mar 7, 3:44 pm, landotter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Consider risk and convenience.

It's a pretty easy calculation when the mitigation of risk is zero.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> On Mar 7, 12:28 pm, Jay <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But I do feel guilty about starting this thread. People are spending
>> so much time trying to convince others, who are never going to change
>> their mind. In that respect, helmet threads are as bad as 'party doll'
>> threads...oops! I did it again!
>
> [...]
>
> What is a party doll?

See
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/ef777f172afe58e6/1d0183679a81fefb?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=sheldon+party+doll#1d0183679a81fefb>
for one of the most infamous threads in the history of rec.bicycles.tech.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mar 7, 2:17 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Are you sure she didn't have an aneurysm? That would explain the
> fainting and the swelling. The "young and healthy" part seems
> inconsistent with spontaneous fainting. In any event, a whack to the
> head certainly can be fatal -- even one that seems pretty minor (e.g.
> hitting your head on a cupboard door). Minor impacts, however,
> usually cause slower bleeds that can be treated if the symptoms are
> recognized. The "I bumped my head and died" scenario is extremely
> rare, IMO. This thread has gotten to the point, though, where we can
> get arcane and talk about the incidence of people who have serious
> injury when the wind blows through their hair. -- Jay Beattie.

More detail. Medicos determined no aneurysm.
Brain swelled up and forced itself through
the foramen magnum. She had been exercising
strenuously. Syncope likely from dehydration
and low blood sugar.

--
Michael Press

 

[SMS]

Ed Pirrero wrote:

> That conclusion is not supported by whole-population data and is thus
> a suspect conclusion. Just because Frank is a jackass doesn't mean
> the study he cites is wholly without value.

Some of the whole population studies are weak because they do not take
other factors into account. Some are less weak than others. None are
perfect. But on the surface, the studies do support the conclusion.

Look at the Western Australia data:

"There was a decrease in the proportion of head injuries from almost
half in 1981-1983 to just over a third in 1993-1995, mainly due to a
reduction in intracranial injuries. Conversely, the proportion of upper
limb fractures increased over that period."

"http://www.health.wa.gov.au/publications/pubhealth/"

When you delve further into the statistics on that study, you find that
the number of crashes went up during those 15 years, which accounts for
the limb fractures, but of course you don't know if a) the increase in
crashes was due to increased population and increased number of
cyclists, b) if the helmet law enacted in the early 1990's caused
increased risk taking by existing cyclists resulting in more crashes
while the actual number of cyclists stayed constant or fell, c) if all
the experienced cyclists stopped riding because of the helmet law, and
more inexperienced cyclists started riding, or d) if there were other
factors related to the decrease in head injuries but increase in limb
fractures.

Some of the other factors in bicycle usage patterns changing in my area,
unrelated to helmets, have been:

a) School redistricting and new schools being opened
b) New shopping and entertainment venues close enough to cycle to
c) A large increase in recreational bicycle trails separated from roadways
d) Promotion of cycling by employers, with the addition of shower
facilities and safe bicycle storage
e) An increase in legal and illegal immigrants commuting to work by bicycle
f) Resurgence of road riding, especially among higher income professionals
g) The opening of more trails to mountain bikers
h) A general population increase
i) The ability to take bicycles on buses, trains, and light rail (this
enables a mixed mode commute for a lot of riders, and the major commuter
rail line now allows 32 bicycles on most trains).

Look at what's happened in Portland, where following the helmet law
cycling went way up and fatalities went way down. How much of the
increase in cycling was because of the helmet law (i.e. come on ma, let
me ride to school, it's safe because I have to wear a helmet) and how
much of the decrease in fatalities, if any, was due to the fact that
most kids were being forced to wear helmets? It's hard to know what
other factors were at work here.

In my own neighborhood cycling be teens shot up by probably 500% in the
past three years, because of two factors totally unrelated to helmets,
and if a helmet law had been enacted during that time then someone would
claim that the helmet law was the cause. Similarly, if the factors that
caused the increase had been reversed, and bicycling fell, someone would
blame the helmet law for the decrease. In either case they'd have been
wrong.

I didn't write about whole population studies because of Frank's
behavior. I've had him filtered out for years, and only see his comments
in follow-up posts by those that respond to his trolling. He thinks he's
being clever and funny, but in reality he's just what you said he is.

What you want to be extremely careful about is quoting statistics from
anywhere other than the official source. The pro and anti helmet web
sites are full of rationalizations and false conclusions. The reality
about helmets is somewhere in the middle. They do provide protection
from fatalities and severe injuries in a limited range of impacts. Above
a certain impact they have no effect, below a certain impact their only
benefit is in preventing scrapes and lacerations.

In any case, a helmet law is not a good idea, in my opinion. The risk of
being involved in a head impact crash where a helmet would prevent death
or serious injury is low, and each cyclist can decide to accept that risk.

 

[SMS]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> On Mar 7, 11:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> Not necessarily. There are certainly crashes where helmets were hit
>> violently when a bare head would have been missed. In particular,
>> high-speed glancing blows to a helmet may cause damage a bare head
>> would not have suffered. I've seen no proof that this happens in a
>> significant number of cases, but the possibility rebuts Scharf's point
>> "b."
>
> I'm still 99% sure that a rider with a helmet will tend to be less
> likely to *try* to keep their head from hitting the ground. Not a
> small factor IMO.

I'm still 100% sure that you have nothing to support your being 99% sure.

 

[SMS]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> On Mar 7, 3:08 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> LOL, so the enormous body of data that shows lower injury and fatality
>> rates for those that wear helmets convinced you that there was no benefit?
>
> Please present it or direct me to it. The *only* pro-helmet data I've
> seen is from poor studies that obviously did not account for important
> factors. Meanwhile *all* the population studies show no benefit.

My experience has been the opposite. The anti-helmet web sites are full
of flawed studies and flawed interpretation of studies, while real
studies, i.e. those with real data, show a benefit, are ignored are
rationalized away.

I.e., the western Australia study which concluded "There was a decrease
in the proportion of head injuries from almost half in 1981-1983 to just
over a third in 1993-1995, mainly due to a reduction in intracranial
injuries. Conversely, the proportion of upper limb fractures increased
over that period."

"http://www.health.wa.gov.au/publications/pubhealth/

As I stated in another post, there was an increase in crashed during
those 15 years and you don't know if a) the increase in crashes was due
to increased population and increased number of cyclists, b) if the
helmet law enacted in the early 1990's caused increased risk taking by
existing cyclists resulting in more crashes while the actual number of
cyclists stayed constant or fell, c) if all the experienced cyclists
stopped riding because of the helmet law, and more inexperienced
cyclists started riding, or d) if there were other factors related to
the decrease in head injuries but increase in limb fractures.

Maybe the decrease in intracranial injuries was due to something other
than a dramatic increase in helmet use following the introduction of a
helmet law. I have no doubt that you and Frank will be able to come up
with an explanation of some sort! Certainly it wasn't because the
helmeted cyclists were more willing to hit their heads, LOL.

 

[Bill Sornson]

SMS wrote:
> Ron Ruff wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 11:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Not necessarily. There are certainly crashes where helmets were hit
>>> violently when a bare head would have been missed. In particular,
>>> high-speed glancing blows to a helmet may cause damage a bare head
>>> would not have suffered. I've seen no proof that this happens in a
>>> significant number of cases, but the possibility rebuts Scharf's
>>> point "b."
>>
>> I'm still 99% sure that a rider with a helmet will tend to be less
>> likely to *try* to keep their head from hitting the ground. Not a
>> small factor IMO.
>
> I'm still 100% sure that you have nothing to support your being 99%
> sure.

RR thinks if he states it as fact then it must be so.

Sad, really.

BS (a bit)

 

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 8, 3:19 am, Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm still 99% sure that a rider with a helmet will tend to be less
> likely to *try* to keep their head from hitting the ground. Not a
> small factor IMO.

You have zero grasp of human psychology, Ron. Protecting the head is a
reflex action hardwired into humans.

If that is the sort of argument you think should stop people wearing
helmets, or stop helmet laws, you're due a harsh disillusionment.

Andre Jute
Psychologist

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 8, 10:54 am, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 3:19 am, Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'm still 99% sure that a rider with a helmet will tend to be less
> > likely to *try* to keep their head from hitting the ground. Not a
> > small factor IMO.
>
> You have zero grasp of human psychology, Ron. Protecting the head is a
> reflex action hardwired into humans.

At least those humans who have survived to continue their gene pools.
Those humans without that instinct/reflex met their evolutionary dead-
ends long ago.

Hail Darwin!


>
> If that is the sort of argument you think should stop people wearing
> helmets, or stop helmet laws, you're due a harsh disillusionment.

IME, Ron Ruff is not a member of Krygowskis merry little band of Anti-
Helmet Psychos. I think he must have some reason to truly believe what
he is saying here, however wrong headed it may be.

>
> Andre Jute
> Psychologist

 

[Jay Beattie]

On Mar 8, 1:43 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
>  Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 2:17 am, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> > Are you sure she didn't have an aneurysm? That would explain the
> > fainting and the swelling.  The "young and healthy" part seems
> > inconsistent with spontaneous fainting. In any event, a whack to the
> > head certainly can be fatal -- even one that seems pretty minor (e.g.
> > hitting your head on a cupboard door).  Minor impacts, however,
> > usually cause slower bleeds that can be treated if the symptoms are
> > recognized.  The "I bumped my head and died" scenario is extremely
> > rare, IMO.  This thread has gotten to the point, though, where we can
> > get arcane and talk about the incidence of people who have serious
> > injury when the wind blows through their hair. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> More detail. Medicos determined no aneurysm.
> Brain swelled up and forced itself through
> the foramen magnum. She had been exercising
> strenuously. Syncope likely from dehydration
> and low blood sugar.

Very weird and unfortunate. I am not a doctor (and do not even play
one on TV), but a moderate blow to the head usually results in a
hematoma in the general area of the blow or some sort of contre coup
injury -- but massive brain swelling and herniation at the brain
stem? Gads. That is fit for an episode of House. I feel sorry for
that woman, although that is exactly how I want to go, but at a more
advanced age. Go for a ride at age 90. Talk to some friends. Pass
out. Adios. Gone on the long ride -- no helmet, with the celestial
winds blowing through my (returned) hair! -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Barry]

> Look at the Western Australia data:
>
> "There was a decrease in the proportion of head injuries from almost half in
> 1981-1983 to just over a third in 1993-1995, mainly due to a reduction in
> intracranial injuries. Conversely, the proportion of upper limb fractures
> increased over that period."

But the Conclusion section of this paper states:

"This decrease cannot be linked clearly with the introduction of helmet
legislation. "

http://www.health.wa.gov.au/publications/pubhealth/conclusion.htm

 

[SMS]

Barry wrote:
>> Look at the Western Australia data:
>>
>> "There was a decrease in the proportion of head injuries from almost half in
>> 1981-1983 to just over a third in 1993-1995, mainly due to a reduction in
>> intracranial injuries. Conversely, the proportion of upper limb fractures
>> increased over that period."
>
> But the Conclusion section of this paper states:
>
> "This decrease cannot be linked clearly with the introduction of helmet
> legislation. "

Right, that's always the problem when you have multiple possible causes
acting simultaneously. Any good researcher would be compelled to add
such a disclaimer.

It can be linked, but not clearly, and not with 100% certainty.

I don't think you'll ever get a helmet and injury study that could
account for all the multiple causes acting upon injury and fatality
rates, and know which cause was responsible for how much of the change.

 

[Dan O]

On Mar 7, 10:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 7, 7:19 am, SMS <[email protected]> said:

> > We can all agree that:

(A classic line. I think that's what Pike says after Benjy tells Mrs.
Marcus to "... just drop dead!"

>
> > e) The perceived risk of unrelated activities has no bearing on the
> > protection that bicycle helmets provide or do not provide.
>
> Absolutely wrong. The fundamental fact is, appropriate protection for
> an activity should be judged based on the level of risk of an
> activity. And the _only_ reasonable way to judge the level of risk of
> an activity is by comparison with other activities.
>

Absolutely wrong. Appropriate protection for an activity should be
judged based on the probability of a harmful event and the cost of its
consequences (risk) vs. the cost and effectiveness of protection.

The risk(s) of any other activity is utterly irrelevant to this
assessment.

As someone who has fallen from a bike and hit his head both with and
without a helmet (and many, many other personal experiences that bear
on the assessment), I think there is some good protection against
potentially devastating consequences to be had from a good helmet, and
for me this perceived value far outweighs the cost of wearing a
helmet,

Definitively pinning down the costs and benefits and consequences and
probabilities is infinitely complex. It varies wildy from one case to
another, and boils down to individual perception, the rationality of
which necessarily varies. (Witness your "skilled rider on icy
downhill potholes vs. less skilled rider on a safer route" scenario.)

In any case, it bothers me that some people seem to be trying to
actively discourage consideration of a helmet as sensible protection.

 

[Patrick Lamb]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 12:40:51 -0800 (PST), Ron Ruff
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 7, 12:28 pm, Jay <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But I do feel guilty about starting this thread. People are spending
>> so much time trying to convince others, who are never going to change
>> their mind. In that respect, helmet threads are as bad as 'party doll'
>> threads...oops! I did it again!
>
>I changed my mind a couple of years ago based on threads like this.
>Until that time I thought it was obvious that helmets reduced serious
>injury and death a lot. I discovered that the best data showed no
>benefit... but I've still been wearing a helmet. Now I'm considering
>that I might as well leave it at home. I keep wondering if someone
>will present a convincing case that I should wear one... but so far
>the data seems stacked the other way, IMO.

Ron, FWIW I came to a similar realization, also a few years ago.
(Since then, I've learned to skip rapidly through threads like this!)
I continue to wear a helmet for most rides though, for a couple of
reasons. First, I can't ride to or from work without wearing a helmet
(pro-helmet zealots got there a long time ago!). Second, and most
important, most of my rides start and/or end at home, and SWMBO has
decreed I will wear a helmet.

Hot summer rides when she's looking the other way when I leave tend to
be exceptions, though.

Pat

Email address works as is.

 

[Bill Sornson]

SMS wrote:
> Barry wrote:
>>> Look at the Western Australia data:
>>>
>>> "There was a decrease in the proportion of head injuries from
>>> almost half in 1981-1983 to just over a third in 1993-1995, mainly
>>> due to a reduction in intracranial injuries. Conversely, the
>>> proportion of upper limb fractures increased over that period."
>>
>> But the Conclusion section of this paper states:
>>
>> "This decrease cannot be linked clearly with the introduction of
>> helmet legislation. "
>
> Right, that's always the problem when you have multiple possible
> causes acting simultaneously. Any good researcher would be compelled
> to add such a disclaimer.
>
> It can be linked, but not clearly, and not with 100% certainty.
>
> I don't think you'll ever get a helmet and injury study that could
> account for all the multiple causes acting upon injury and fatality
> rates, and know which cause was responsible for how much of the
> change.

The AHZs are quick to draw definitive conclusions (e.g., reduced ridership
after an MHL) from such studies when it bolsters their weak case, and
definitively reject cold hard facts (reduced head injuries) when it exposes
their biased idiocy.

Just the way it is.

BS

 

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 8, 5:28 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 10:54 am, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 3:19 am, Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I'm still 99% sure that a rider with a helmet will tend to be less
> > > likely to *try* to keep their head from hitting the ground. Not a
> > > small factor IMO.
>
> > You have zero grasp of human psychology, Ron. Protecting the head is a
> > reflex action hardwired into humans.
>
> At least those humans who have survived to continue their gene pools.
> Those humans without that instinct/reflex met their evolutionary dead-
> ends long ago.
>
> Hail Darwin!
>
> > If that is the sort of argument you think should stop people wearing
> > helmets, or stop helmet laws, you're due a harsh disillusionment.
>
> IME, Ron Ruff is not a member of Krygowskis merry little band of Anti-
> Helmet Psychos. I think he must have some reason to truly believe what
> he is saying here, however wrong headed it may be.

I don't bother reading what Krygo sends; he's not very bright.

However, it would be very interesting if Ron were proved right, though
it should be clear that I don't think he can be; that brain-protecting
reflex is millennia in the making and won't be bred out of humans
soon.

I don't know if Steven or someone else has made the point, but the
cited downwards shift in head-trauma fatalities and the upward shift
in other serious injuries in accidents involving cyclists, far from
being anomaly in the statistics, is a pretty clear example of the sort
of column-transfer familiar to market researchers. It indicates that
helmet-reflex combination saved the cyclist from head injury but
(surprise, surprise, since he wears it on his noggin) not from the
other associated injuries. Thus helmets work to some crudely
quantifiable extent. I might add that investment bankers and
entrepreneurs daily take decisions involving many millions or even
billions of dollars on evidence much less comprehensive than the
widespread evidence in support of the conclusion that bicycle helmets
work.

Andre Jute
Levels of confidence

 

[SMS]

Dan O wrote:
> On Mar 7, 10:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 7:19 am, SMS <[email protected]> said:
>
>>> We can all agree that:
>
> (A classic line. I think that's what Pike says after Benjy tells Mrs.
> Marcus to "... just drop dead!"
>
>>> e) The perceived risk of unrelated activities has no bearing on the
>>> protection that bicycle helmets provide or do not provide.
>> Absolutely wrong. The fundamental fact is, appropriate protection for
>> an activity should be judged based on the level of risk of an
>> activity. And the _only_ reasonable way to judge the level of risk of
>> an activity is by comparison with other activities.
>>
>
> Absolutely wrong. Appropriate protection for an activity should be
> judged based on the probability of a harmful event and the cost of its
> consequences (risk) vs. the cost and effectiveness of protection.
>
> The risk(s) of any other activity is utterly irrelevant to this
> assessment.

Well stated.

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Mar 8, 6:31 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> However, it would be very interesting if Ron were proved right, though
> it should be clear that I don't think he can be; that brain-protecting
> reflex is millennia in the making and won't be bred out of humans
> soon.

Actually, it is obvious that we act on what we believe is fragile and
what isn't very quickly... even with no practice. The example of
falling with a fragile object is evidence of that.

> I don't know if Steven or someone else has made the point, but the
> cited downwards shift in head-trauma fatalities and the upward shift
> in other serious injuries in accidents involving cyclists, far from
> being anomaly in the statistics, is a pretty clear example of the sort
> of column-transfer familiar to market researchers. It indicates that
> helmet-reflex combination saved the cyclist from head injury but
> (surprise, surprise, since he wears it on his noggin) not from the
> other associated injuries. Thus helmets work to some crudely
> quantifiable extent. I might add that investment bankers and
> entrepreneurs daily take decisions involving many millions or even
> billions of dollars on evidence much less comprehensive than the
> widespread evidence in support of the conclusion that bicycle helmets
> work.

This is not true at all in any of the studies I've seen which show
numbers both right before and right after MHLs. The West Oz studies
cited do not show this... they were 12 years apart. For some reason
they are even shy about showing the actual percentages of head
injuries. Why do they state it thus: " There was a decrease in the
proportion of head injuries from almost half in 1981-1983 to just over
a third in 1993-1995, mainly due to a reduction in intracranial
injuries". Almost half and over a third could be vitually the same
percentage. Plus over such a long time period, all sorts of things
could be different (traffic, types of riding, etc) that would skew the
results.

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Mar 8, 9:54 am, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> You have zero grasp of human psychology, Ron. Protecting the head is a
> reflex action hardwired into humans.

Sorry Andre... but you are wrong. There is surely some instinctive
reflex in this respect, but we obviously *learn* what is or isn't
fragile fairly quickly and behave accordingly... based on our beliefs.
I'd be happy to consider your evidence, however.