On 28 Nov 2004 11:55:36 -0800,
[email protected] (Joe Keenan)
wrote in message <
[email protected]>:
>Yikes. Put razors on your cycling shoes and jump all over me.
I'd slip - those Look cleats are a bugger ;-)
>I'm not
>trying to change your opinion, but your posts are trying to change
>mine.
A bit. Actually what I want is for you to go and read the source data
and its published discussions. Having done that you may or may not
agree with me - I don't mind. The enemy here is widespread public
ignorance, on which the cynical helmet lobby play. You will not hear
a helmet company say "this helmet will prevent 85% of injuries"
because they know damned well it won't. That figure comes from a
single study with more holes than a Swiss cheese. So the helmet
manufacturers fund SafeKids to say it for them, and the 85% figure is
still "out there" and being promoted despite the fact that it is the
highest figure from any of the major studies, substantially higher
than the others, and is known to be /completely wrong/. People who
profess themselves experts, campaigning on the issue, are quoting this
figure as gospel. They are either ill-informed or liars.
Helmet promoters do this:
- exaggerate the number of injuries
- conflate genuinely serious injuries with the kinds of knocks and
bangs we took in our stride twenty years ago
- exaggerate the risk of death
- state that helmets prevent nearly all head injuries
- imply that helmets are as effective against serious injuries as
minor ones
- imply that helmets are effective against the kinds of injuries
people are afraid of, those causing permanent intellectual disablement
- imply that helmets will be effective against the major source of
serious injuries, motor traffic.
All these are false.
In the UK the major helmet promoters put out a figure of 50 child head
injury deaths due to cycling every year. The real figure is ten, out
of 22 fatalities in total. They said this was an "estimate based on
under-reporting". I leave it to you to calculate the likelihood of
80% of fatal child cyclist head injuries going unreported! The
official figure for unreported cyclist fatalities is: 0%.
>I'm saying that I believe it "might"
>lessen or minimize injury to me. That's all. It works for me.
Might is a good word in this context
>I'd like to hear your counter arguements (and yes..I'm sure willing to
>listen to the other side) about how not wearing a helmet would have
>helped me in this one.
>Cycling along at a pretty good clip.
>Hit a rock which was almost impossible to see. (For this scenario,
>assume you couldn't see the rock even if you tried, and you really
>couldn't. Know key lighting? Bright brights? Dark Darks? Was looking
>at the road because of debris seen earlier, and never saw the
>"camoflaged" rock. And I was looking at the spot where the rock was.)
>See it at last minute. Try to avoid it. Don't.
>Large enough rock to cause an endo.
>Landed on the side of my head (top right skull portion) and right
>shoulder.
>Slid, rubbing the shirt and much skin off my shoulder.
>The slide also wore away the plastic on the helmet and much of the
>foam.
>With what scenarios "sans helmet" do I not come up with severe road
>rash on my scalp and side of my face?
This one: you are not wearing a helmet so you ride more cautiously and
miss the rock, or crash much slower.
Actually it is quite possible that any decent hat would prevent
cranial road-rash (a fact not so much overlooked as walked by
whistling and looking the other way in the helmet studies).
The most consistent conclusion from helmet studies is that helmeted
and unhelmeted riders ride differently.
Well done for thinking though
The key point is this: prospective
studies measure the probability of any injury given crash; population
studies measure the probability of serious injury given ride.
Population studies consistently show no benefit. So the likely
explanation is: helmets prevent many trivial injuries, and cause as
many serious ones as they save.
Oh, and the largest ever prospective study, covering eight million
crashes in the USA over a 15 year period, found that helmeted cyclists
were more likely to die.
It is nothing if not confusing.
Check out
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/ and
http://www.cyclehelmets.org to be confused even more
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University