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

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 10, 5:30 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 5:24 am, Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> This shows the *upward* shift in the percentage of head injuries for
> >> cyclists in the US from 1991 to 2005.http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1177
>
> > Thanks for the link, Ron. I know that site. It is pretty partisan, the
> > sort of place where every time I pick up a single statistic, I want to
> > wash my hands.
>
> That site is pretty worthless, it's so hopelessly biased. Always be
> extremely wary of any site that talks about "extracting data."
>
> I.e., if you query the Neiss database for concussions from bicycle
> related injuries, you see the rates trending downward from 2000 until
> the last year of available data (2006), but there are earlier years
> where there are even less concussions than in 2006. There are so many
> other variables that it's impossible to know if helmets were the reasons
> for the decline toward the end of the reported data or not.
>
> 2000 13168
> 2001 10562
> 2002 12104
> 2003 11914
> 2004 11732
> 2005 12610
> 2006 11674

I'm familiar with environmentalists extracting short series to try and
make their point, when the true trend in the longer term is in exactly
the opposite direction. It is dishonest whoever does it. Since so many
cyclists are also environmentalists, it is possible that a belief has
grown up that such tricks are acceptable. They're not. Lies are lies,
and despicable. Statistics perverted as advocacy demeans into mere
propaganda the very act of disseminating information.

Andre Jute
Extractions belong to dentistry

 

[SMS]

Andre Jute wrote:

> I'm familiar with environmentalists extracting short series to try and
> make their point, when the true trend in the longer term is in exactly
> the opposite direction. It is dishonest whoever does it. Since so many
> cyclists are also environmentalists, it is possible that a belief has
> grown up that such tricks are acceptable. They're not. Lies are lies,
> and despicable. Statistics perverted as advocacy demeans into mere
> propaganda the very act of disseminating information.

Not sure if I'd insult environmentalists by equating them with these people!

All of these anti-helmet websites have serious flaws with their
interpretation of statistics and their conclusions. The fact that
statistics support helmet use infuriate them, so they go out and
"extract" statistics.

I could understand why they feel that they have to resort to this sort
of thing if it were only to fight compulsory helmet laws. But many do it
just to try to justify their own non-use to others--behavior that has to
be justified to no one since it's their choice.

I've only ever seen one "pro-helmet" web sites, the "Bicycle Helmet
Safety Institute" site, and at least they clearly state "Below are acres
of stats from every source we can find. They do not always agree,
indicating that some of them are could be less than totally accurate."

At least the pro-helmet people understand that statistics can be wrong,
and are trying to find out what the truth is in a mass of anti-helmet
misinformation and propaganda.

I don't like MHLs, but the way to fight them is with facts and logic,
not by making up propaganda that is so easily discredited.

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Mar 10, 8:48 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> All of these anti-helmet websites have serious flaws with their
> interpretation of statistics and their conclusions. The fact that
> statistics support helmet use infuriate them, so they go out and
> "extract" statistics.

I've yet to see statistics that support helmet use... except for
studies that are obviously and seriously flawed. Still waiting for you
to present one. On the contrary, the anti-helmet sites are the only
ones that have at least attempted to account for other variables, and
to look at whole-population statistics. I'm also waiting for you to
discredit or "explain" this data.

> I could understand why they feel that they have to resort to this sort
> of thing if it were only to fight compulsory helmet laws. But many do it
> just to try to justify their own non-use to others--behavior that has to
> be justified to no one since it's their choice.

I wore a helmet for over 20 years and only began to question it based
on data showing it to be ineffective. I know this to be true of
several others... probably the majority of those who take the time to
question helmet efficacy.

> I've only ever seen one "pro-helmet" web sites, the "Bicycle Helmet
> Safety Institute" site, and at least they clearly state "Below are acres
> of stats from every source we can find. They do not always agree,
> indicating that some of them are could be less than totally accurate."

True... every single pro-helmet study they reference is obviously
worthless.
What about the many case studies online which were funded and
undertaken to show that helmets are effective? Wouldn't you call them
pro-helmet sites? I would.

> I don't like MHLs, but the way to fight them is with facts and logic,
> not by making up propaganda that is so easily discredited.

You seem to be full of rhetoric like this, but never present anything.
No facts... no logic. If you actually are an engineer, do you work in
the PR branch?

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 8, 3:54 pm, Dan O <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 10:45 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> > 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.

So, Dan, let's say you were getting ready to take up some new
activity, whether it was extreme tap dancing, recreational tree
climbing, whatever.

If someone came up to you and said "Dan, we've got good data; the risk
of serious head injury in that activity is 1.68 serious HI per million
hours activity." How would you evaluate that raw information?
Specifically, how would you know if that tells you "Whoa! I'd better
find _some_ kind of helmet!" vs. "Hey, 'per million' make it sound
fine to me!"

The only rational way to actually judge is by comparison with other
activities.

IOW, if you're a backpacker, and you find that number pretty well
matches the number for backpacking, then you _should_ conclude "I
don't wear one for backpacking, so I won't wear one for tree
climbing." OTOH, if you play tackle football and you find out extreme
tap dancing is as dangerous as tackle football, you should probably
say "Gee, I wouldn't want to play tackle football without a helmet, so
I'd better be consistent and wear it for tap dancing over obstacle
courses."

If the same number generates a desire for inconsistent protection in
two different activities, I'd say the odds are strong that you're
responding to advertising hype, rather than real information.

> 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,

Realize that "some good protection" is pretty vague. Also realize
that the phrase "for me" is key. The people that yell "Where's your
helmet??" or that pay for promotional literature saying "Never leave
your driveway without a helmet" are not saying "for me." They are
telling others what to do. So are the people who write into law "Any
cyclist operating on public rights of way shall wear..."

> 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.

If I'm trying to actively discourage anything, it's the assumption
that ordinary bicycling is so dangerous that special headgear is
highly desirable. That, and the idea that these fragile, certified-
for-14-mph caps somehow offer magic protection far beyond their design
standards - despite reams of data showing the minimal protection
actually jibes with the minimal design standards.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Mar 10, 5:09 pm, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's the authentic sound of someone who has lost the argument, Ron:
> you've just started on a career of character assassination.

I'd like to have a reasonable discussion about this, but it gets very
frustrating when one side keeps failing to present a case.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> [...]
> You seem to be full of rhetoric like this, but never present anything.
> No facts... no logic. If you actually are an engineer, do you work in
> the PR branch?
>
If so, Scharf is making a lot more money than he would be otherwise.

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

 

[SMS]

Andre Jute wrote:
> On Mar 10, 3:28 pm, Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote (not to me,
> to someone else):
>> You seem to be full of rhetoric like this, but never present anything.
>> No facts... no logic. If you actually are an engineer, do you work in
>> the PR branch?
>
> That's the authentic sound of someone who has lost the argument, Ron:
> you've just started on a career of character assassination.

LOL, he lost it a long time ago, by failing to present any evidence to
support his position, while I've repeatedly presented references and
citations, and not ones from lame anti-helmet web sites.

His statement: "My evidence is my own experiences..." sums it up well.

> Is that really what you want to do and be, Ron? I urge you to retract
> the slight immediately. Stop and think. That sort of underhand smear
> lowers the tone of your case (1) to the despicable level of fogelism.

It's Usenet and no offense is taken. People say all sorts of things on
Usenet that they would never say in person.

Anyway, I'm off to Taiwan tomorrow for the Taipei International Cycle
Show on March 13th to 16th, so I'm afraid my participation in this
thread has come to an end unless it's still going when I get back. Too
many wild parties to waste time on Usenet (assuming my hotel even has
free wireless). I'll take lots of photos and post some of them when I
get back. There's always a lot of bizarre stuff at this show, much more
interesting show than Interbike. Better food in Taipei than in Las Vegas
too!

 

[Bill Sornson]

SMS wrote:
{snips taken}

> His statement: "My evidence is my own experiences..." sums it up well.

Especially ironic since the AHZs completely deride as meaningless anecdotes
things like, "I crashed on some slippery train tracks and cracked my helmet
on the pavement before I knew what was happening". Common sense and
personal experience (minus hyperbole) trump biased and misleading "whole
population studies" any day of the week.

(Also, of course, it's highly doubtful that Ruff ever fell while helmeted
and had time to think, "Hey, I've got a lid on my head; no need to protect
it!")

BS

 

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> SMS wrote:
> {snips taken}
>
>> His statement: "My evidence is my own experiences..." sums it up well.
>
> Especially ironic since the AHZs completely deride as meaningless anecdotes
> things like, "I crashed on some slippery train tracks and cracked my helmet
> on the pavement before I knew what was happening". Common sense and
> personal experience (minus hyperbole) trump biased and misleading "whole
> population studies" any day of the week.
> [...]

Sorni does not like science. What a surprise.

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

 

[Tom Sherman]

SMS aka Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 3:28 pm, Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote (not to me,
>> to someone else):
>>> You seem to be full of rhetoric like this, but never present anything.
>>> No facts... no logic. If you actually are an engineer, do you work in
>>> the PR branch?
>>
>> That's the authentic sound of someone who has lost the argument, Ron:
>> you've just started on a career of character assassination.
>
> LOL, he lost it a long time ago, by failing to present any evidence to
> support his position, while I've repeatedly presented references and
> citations, and not ones from lame anti-helmet web sites.[...]
>
Where are these citations?

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

 

[Clive George]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> LOL, he lost it a long time ago, by failing to present any evidence to
> support his position, while I've repeatedly presented references and
> citations, and not ones from lame anti-helmet web sites.

That gave me the biggest giggle I've had for a while on RBT. I've not seen
any references and citations from you, despite people asking for them.

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 10, 11:51 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Anyway, I'm off to Taiwan tomorrow for the Taipei International Cycle
> Show on March 13th to 16th, so I'm afraid my participation in this
> thread has come to an end ...

Well, you've done better than you usually do. That is, you actually
provided seven data points, and you gave a link to one pro-helmet
study. Of course, you gave no substantive discussion of either of
those, and neither advanced your case; but it was an improvement over
baseless, authoritative pronouncements.

When you return, perhaps you can actually discuss the data, OK?

- Frank Krygowski

..

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 11, 7:09 am, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > LOL, he lost it a long time ago, by failing to present any evidence to
> > support his position, while I've repeatedly presented references and
> > citations, and not ones from lame anti-helmet web sites.
>
> That gave me the biggest giggle I've had for a while on RBT. I've not seen
> any references and citations from you, despite people asking for them.

He did post seven rather meaningless data points. And he pointed to
one article from a pro-helmet web site - which, I assume, he doesn't
call "lame" because it agrees with the World's Greatest Authority.

Actually providing even a little evidence may be a personal record for
Mr. Scharf. I think we should give positive feedback for this small
achievement.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Mar 11, 12:51 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> LOL, he lost it a long time ago, by failing to present any evidence to
> support his position, while I've repeatedly presented references and
> citations, and not ones from lame anti-helmet web sites.

This is the authentic sound of me laughing my butt off! It is of
course a common tactic to accuse others of what you have been doing
all along. While you and Andre debate the characteristics of the
strawman AHZs you've created, I decided that it was finally... enough!
Andre hasn't been in here long enough to have a clue about all that
has transpired in this thread. But you have. You are on a mission of
BS and diversion, that much is obvious. You claim that stats are bogus
simply because they are on a certain website or dealing with a study
that you claim has no merit... but you never once gave a *reason* why.
Meanwhile the two I've seen you post (Snell and West Oz) are quite
obviously deficient in credibilty because their methods are no good...
this is easy enough to determine via logic and reason. And I don't
mean this sort of logic "that site is anti-helmet, and I am pro-
helmet... therefore they are making things up". I've told you exactly
what is wrong with the "studies" you referenced... and every other one
I've come across that says helmets are effective. If you wish to
discuss the issue, you should provide the same courtesy... rather than
behave as though you are running for president.

> His statement: "My evidence is my own experiences..." sums it up well.

That was one part of it... how sweet of you to focus on that part.

> It's Usenet and no offense is taken. People say all sorts of things on
> Usenet that they would never say in person.

I'd be happy to say it to your face.

If you have a case at all, then please present it.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Dan Overman wrote:
> [...]
> I'm done. If anyone replies they can have the last word.

"0.ahno. the edo comes and goes. you stand there and experience the edo
unless you are bound by ego
riding a bike is highly valued as a way to experience and sample the
edo” - gene daniels

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

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 12, 1:15 am, [email protected] wrote:

<Krygo blather snipped to save everyone's time>

- Franky's talking helmeats - again! -


> I suspect people are still swallowing the [helmet] propaganda, but just not
> admitting to it.  But again, that's their choice.

So nice of you to allow people a choice, Franky.


>  As long as they
> don't try to spread falsehoods and disparage cycling, then helmets,
> purple shorts, cartoon jerseys, matching socks, etc. are all just
> style and fashion.
>

And *anyone* who crosses that line will run afoul of Frank Krygowski,
The Caped Gasbag, er, Crusader!!!

http://preview.tinyurl.com/28yqwz

or, for the fearless:

http://tinyurl.com/28yqwz