First Helmet : jury is out.

[Frank Krygowski]

"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Given all the riding I plan to
> do my options seem limited. 1) come away dead, 2) come away extremely messed
> up, 3) come away with some skin removed and some stuff broken. So if my
> helmet helps with situation 3, I'll be happy. In either of the other two
> options, the helmet thing will be a moot point.

??

There's certainly another option. Ride competently. Don't crash.

It's worked for me for several decades now.

-- Frank Krygowski

 

[Roger Zoul]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
:: news:<[email protected]>...
::: Given all the riding I plan to
::: do my options seem limited. 1) come away dead, 2) come away
::: extremely messed
::: up, 3) come away with some skin removed and some stuff broken. So
::: if my
::: helmet helps with situation 3, I'll be happy. In either of the
::: other two
::: options, the helmet thing will be a moot point.
::
:: ??
::
:: There's certainly another option. Ride competently. Don't crash.
::
:: It's worked for me for several decades now.

That's good to know, actually, and I plan to do exactly that!

 

[Bernie]

Q. wrote:

>"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
><snip>
>
>>:: The added noise and irritation that the helment causes more than
>>:: offsets the "possible" help it gives in case of a spill by deducting
>>:: from my usual spacial awareness.
>>
>>What noise and irritation? Regardless of any merits about safety, I find
>>
>my
>
>>helmet comfortable. If I ride without it, I feel as though I'm not
>>
>wearing
>
>>my seatbelt.
>>
>
>Interesting ... I've heard similar statements before. I wonder if there is
>a "security blanket" effect associated with helmets. I can see how wearing
>a "magic foam hat" fundamentally wouldn't be any different than a cave man
>wearing a talisman around his neck while going into battle.
>
>C.Q.C.
>
>
You mean like ancient Celts wearing only tattoos, torque (around the
neck) and sandals?

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 21:52:58 GMT, "curt" <[email protected]> wrote in
message <[email protected]>:

>I don't even know if helmets are a law in Pennsylvania, but I wear one. I
>don't know why, but if I were to ride a motorcycle, I probably wouldn't, but
>my bicycle I wear one.

Wierd! Motorcycle helmets actually provide meaningful protection,
unlike cycle helmets (although neither appears to improve the safety
of the users, according to population-level statistics). In traffic a
cycle helmet is pretty much worthless, unless it's wet or icy and you
might fall off. That's what they are designed for: falling off. I
have fallen off once this year, on a wet road with a diesel spill, but
I was riding the 'bent so hit the ground **** first

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

 

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:26:07 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Mon, 10 May 2004 21:52:58 GMT, "curt" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message <[email protected]>:
>
>>I don't even know if helmets are a law in Pennsylvania, but I wear one. I
>>don't know why, but if I were to ride a motorcycle, I probably wouldn't, but
>>my bicycle I wear one.
>
> Wierd! Motorcycle helmets actually provide meaningful protection,
> unlike cycle helmets (although neither appears to improve the safety
> of the users, according to population-level statistics). In traffic a
> cycle helmet is pretty much worthless, unless it's wet or icy and you
> might fall off. That's what they are designed for: falling off. I
> have fallen off once this year, on a wet road with a diesel spill, but
> I was riding the 'bent so hit the ground **** first
>
> Guy

I'm not sure about that.
Snell's standard
http://www.smf.org/standards/m2000std.html#TESTING
seems to pass a helmet if it can reduce acceleration to a headform to
<300G after a 3m drop, approx. equal to 30-40kph. So motorcycle helmets
don't give that much protection neither!
Peter

--
This transmission is certified free of viruses as no Microsoft products
were used in its preparation or propagation.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
Peter Keller <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:26:07 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 10 May 2004 21:52:58 GMT, "curt" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > message <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>I don't even know if helmets are a law in Pennsylvania, but I wear one. I
> >>don't know why, but if I were to ride a motorcycle, I probably wouldn't, but
> >>my bicycle I wear one.
> >
> > Wierd! Motorcycle helmets actually provide meaningful protection,
> > unlike cycle helmets (although neither appears to improve the safety
> > of the users, according to population-level statistics).

> I'm not sure about that.
> Snell's standard
> http://www.smf.org/standards/m2000std.html#TESTING
> seems to pass a helmet if it can reduce acceleration to a headform to
> <300G after a 3m drop, approx. equal to 30-40kph. So motorcycle helmets
> don't give that much protection neither!

The purpose of any helmet is not to save you from the unfortunate
circumstances in which your head actually gets hit by a car. There's not
much you can do.

But at least in theory, the big killer is those falls off the seat of
your bike to the ground. The helmet offers protection from that impact,
plus abrasion protection.

Without making any rash claims, I had one motorcycle accident that made
me very happy to be wearing a helmet,
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> The purpose of any helmet is not to save you from the unfortunate
> circumstances in which your head actually gets hit by a car. There's not
> much you can do.

For the record, car crashes cause over 90% of bike fatalities.

>
> But at least in theory, the big killer is those falls off the seat of
> your bike to the ground. The helmet offers protection from that impact,
> plus abrasion protection.



So "the big killer" is the kind of fall we all had dozens of, when we
were kids buzzing around the block on bikes?

It's odd, isn't it, that nobody ever noticed that terrible carnage.
Until, that is, Bell had a new product to sell to the new adult "bike
boom" population of the 1970s. Then, suddenly, what every kid had
been doing all his life became "the big killer."

Why, until that time, mothers all across North America cheerfully sent
their children out to risk death! Their only protection from "the big
killer" was motherly advice: "Now be careful!"

How do you suppose they suppressed the tales of carnage? Where do you
suppose they hid the bodies? ;-)

> Without making any rash claims, I had one motorcycle accident that made
> me very happy to be wearing a helmet,

Maybe so. But motorcycle helmets' protection statistics aren't much
better than bike helmets. The only thing you can realistically say is
that motorcycling is fairly dangerous. Unlike bicycling.

-- Frank Krygowski

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 20:40:02 -0700, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>But at least in theory, the big killer is those falls off the seat of
>your bike to the ground. The helmet offers protection from that impact,
>plus abrasion protection.

Er, except that the big killer is motor vehicles. Crashes with no
motor vehicle involved are substantially less likely to result in
serious injury or death.

In umpteen years of cycling I have fallen from my bike to the ground
exactly twice: once when something got lodged in the front wheel,
which sent me headfirst into the ground (no helmet, survived OK); the
other was when I hit a diesel slick on the 'bent and went down on my
**** (missing my head by 3ft). I only ride 4,000-5,000 miles per
year, of course, and rarely average more than 20mph on any ride, so I
can quite see how some people might be at more risk.

I have, on the other hand, come very close to death thanks to a
clueless driver. Luckily my knitted acrylic balaclava Saved My Life
[tm].

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

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 13 May 2004 11:10:30 -0700, [email protected] (Frank Krygowski)
wrote:

>How do you suppose they suppressed the tales of carnage? Where do you
>suppose they hid the bodies? ;-)

More farms. Cheap fertilizer.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Frank Krygowski) wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > The purpose of any helmet is not to save you from the unfortunate
> > circumstances in which your head actually gets hit by a car. There's not
> > much you can do.
>
> For the record, car crashes cause over 90% of bike fatalities.
>
> >
> > But at least in theory, the big killer is those falls off the seat of
> > your bike to the ground. The helmet offers protection from that impact,
> > plus abrasion protection.
>
>
>
> So "the big killer" is the kind of fall we all had dozens of, when we
> were kids buzzing around the block on bikes?

Okay, a few points.

1) "IN THEORY, the big killer...." In other words, I was explaining what
helmet standards were aimed at preventing, not arguing for the efficacy
of helmets. I don't know about you, but while I fell off my bike a few
times, I never pranged my head full on (my father did, with a helmet,
and suffered nerve damage nonetheless).

No wait, it was just the one point,
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[George Washburn]

Walter Mitty wrote:
>
> Hmm. Just bought a cycling helmet for my last short tour which
> encompassed quite a bit of city cycling. Never wore one before : don't
> think I will again.
>
> The added noise and irritation that the helment causes more than offsets
> the "possible" help it gives in case of a spill by deducting from my
> usual spacial awareness.
>
> I don't know. I still refuse to believe that the helmet won't help in a
> spill, but wonder if the %chance of it helping offsets the % increase
> in likelihood of an accident due to lower awareness levels.
I always hear people taking about studies and statistics. For me, I
don't need no statistics. I'm a traffic accident investigator and have
been for 14 years. Over that period of time I've seen some pretty crazy
accidents involving bikes but two really stand out in my mind. The first
one was a graduate student that had been riding for many years. He was
wearing street clothes and no helmet. He rode off the curb and,
according to witnesses, his front wheel turned completely to the right
and he went over the handlebars. He landed directly on the top of his
head and sustained severe brain injury. When I got to him he was
breathing (barely). That was about three years ago and I understand he's
able to walk now (sort of). He went from being a graduate student to a
near vegetable in less than a second!

The second was a guy riding down a long hill. Again, according to
witnesses he tried to ride up a driveway and lost control. He went head
first into a retaining wall. Out cold when I got there. I don't know
what happened to him but I'm pretty sure neither of these guys would
have been in such bad shape if they had been wearing a helmet.

Now, a third accident that comes to mind is the woman that fell off her
bike and went under the wheels of a cement mixer. Obviously no helmet
would have helped her but when I examined the remains I found she was
wearing a set of headphones. She rode off of a sidewalk into a crosswalk
right into the path of the truck (that had a green light). I can't say
for sure but I believe the headphones may have contributed to the
collison by either not permitting her to hear the truck or causing her
concentration to be elsewhere.

Bottom line, I'd wear the helmet and use caution entering or leaving
driveways or curbs. And for gods sake don't use crosswalk unless you
walk the bike! People only look at the corner for peds, bikes move much
faster and people just won't look further down the sidewalk for you.

G. Washburn

 

[Frank Krygowski]

George Washburn wrote:
>
> I always hear people taking about studies and statistics. For me, I
> don't need no statistics. I'm a traffic accident investigator and have
> been for 14 years. Over that period of time I've seen some pretty crazy
> accidents involving bikes but two really stand out in my mind.

[Horror stories trimmed.]

So, George, in your 14 years on that job, have you ever seen any
motorists who were head injured?

How about pedestrians?

Please tell us a couple tales about them.

Because it seems that motorists suffer far more serious head injuries
than cyclists. Motorists are about 50% of America's head injury
fatalities, for example. Cyclists are less than 1%.

And pedestrian traffic deaths far outnumber cyclist traffic deaths. The
same is true for pedestrian head injury deaths, either in absolute
numbers or on a per-hour basis.

(Yeah, I know you don't like statistics, so I won't quote the sources
unless requested. But statistics are much more reliable than one
person's agenda-distorted memory.)


Seems to me that you're yet another safety missionary who wants to
remove the mote from the cyclists' eye, while ignoring the beam in the
motorist's eye.

Or in less biblical terms, you're disparaging cycling. Why do the
safety freaks always disparage cycling?


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[R15757]

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:

<< And pedestrian traffic deaths far outnumber cyclist traffic deaths. The
same is true for pedestrian head injury deaths, either in absolute
numbers or on a per-hour basis. >>

I don't doubt this last one is true, but what is your source for the number of
pedestrian head injuries on a per hour basis, and cyclist head injuries on a
per hour basis?

Robert

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 17 May 2004 08:33:12 -0700, George Washburn
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>I always hear people taking about studies and statistics. For me, I
>don't need no statistics.

Of course not, because you are a True Believer. I envy you your
unswerving conviction. Me, I agnonised for ages before I reluctantly
had to accept that, as the British minister for roads said in a letter
to a parliamentary colleague, there is no known case where cyclist
safety has improved as a result of increased helmet wearing.

If they were really that good, there would be some evidence by now.
But there isn't. The only evidence in favour of hlemts is either from
small-scale prospective studies or is anecdotal (like the two
70-year-olds who suffered similar crashes, over the bars when hitting
a pothole, and the one wearing ahelmet died while the other survived;
conclusive proof that helmets always kill in all cases).

The kind of evidence which is most robust, population level and
time-series - the kind of evidence which established the link between
smoking and cancer, for example - shows no benefit in serious and
fatal injuries. Which means that helmets cause as many injuries
(through overconfidence or whatever) as they save. Which is not many,
as most fatal cyclist crashes involve a motor vehicle and forces
outside the design parameters of a motor racing driver's helmet,
forget your inch or less of expanded polystyrene.

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

 

[neil0502]

Originally posted by Frank Krygowski

So, George, in your 14 years on that job, have you ever seen any
motorists who were head injured?

How about pedestrians?

Please tell us a couple tales about them.

Because it seems that motorists suffer far more serious head injuries
than cyclists. Motorists are about 50% of America's head injury
fatalities, for example. Cyclists are less than 1%.

And pedestrian traffic deaths far outnumber cyclist traffic deaths. The
same is true for pedestrian head injury deaths, either in absolute
numbers or on a per-hour basis.

I'm still looking for sound reasons for not wearing a bicycle helmet.
I've read people's comments that helmets are not particularly
comfortable, may be warmer than not wearing one, and that they may alter
the environmental sounds that you hear while riding.

For me (again, YMMV), those are pretty small prices to pay (many of them
can also be dramatically mitigated through appropriate helmet selection
and fitting)--especially as one who took a header over the bars ten days
ago on an mtb ride, landing smack dab on my $20 Bell and putting a 4"
hole in it. Feel secure in saying: that would have been my head.

The reason I continue to play advocate here is simple: there's a very
vocal and adamant group of people on this NG who would have us believe
that helmets are useless, or worse. I think it's reasonable to present
new cyclists with an opposing viewpoint that says, quite simply, wearing
a (properly selected, well-fitting) helmet probably won't hurt you, and
it could minimize your injuries in the event of a crash.

statistics are much more reliable than one person's agenda-
distorted memory.)

Gee, Frank: the viewpoint doesn't agree with yours, so the person
expressing that viewpoint is memory impaired and not objective. Sigh....

Seems to me that you're yet another safety missionary who wants to
remove the mote from the cyclists' eye, while ignoring the beam in the
motorist's eye.

Or in less biblical terms, you're disparaging cycling. Why do the safety
freaks always disparage cycling?

Again, Frank: I don't see where this poster (or I, or any other poster)
"disparaged cycling."

Very little is accomplished by you calling names ("freaks"), labeling
people as simplistically as you do, or leveling unfounded accusations
(that anybody is advocating either mandatory helmet legislation, or
preventing you from legally riding your bike helmet-free).

If you don't want to wear a helmet while cycling, Frank, that's okay.
I'd be interested to hear if there's anybody on this NG who thinks that
it's not okay for you to make that choice.

I submit, however, that it is a worthwhile endeavor to attempt to inform
new cyclists as to the downside of helmet use and the likely upside in
minimizing injury in the event of a crash.

Neil



--

 

[neil0502]

Originally posted by Frank Krygowski

So, George, in your 14 years on that job, have you ever seen any
motorists who were head injured?

How about pedestrians?

Please tell us a couple tales about them.

Because it seems that motorists suffer far more serious head injuries
than cyclists. Motorists are about 50% of America's head injury
fatalities, for example. Cyclists are less than 1%.

And pedestrian traffic deaths far outnumber cyclist traffic deaths. The
same is true for pedestrian head injury deaths, either in absolute
numbers or on a per-hour basis.

I'm still looking for sound reasons for not wearing a bicycle helmet.
I've read people's comments that helmets are not particularly
comfortable, may be warmer than not wearing one, and that they may alter
the environmental sounds that you hear while riding.

For me (again, YMMV), those are pretty small prices to pay (many of them
can also be dramatically mitigated through appropriate helmet selection
and fitting)--especially as one who took a header over the bars ten days
ago on an mtb ride, landing smack dab on my $20 Bell and putting a 4"
hole in it. Feel secure in saying: that would have been my head.

The reason I continue to play advocate here is simple: there's a very
vocal and adamant group of people on this NG who would have us believe
that helmets are useless, or worse. I think it's reasonable to present
new cyclists with an opposing viewpoint that says, quite simply, wearing
a (properly selected, well-fitting) helmet probably won't hurt you, and
it could minimize your injuries in the event of a crash.

statistics are much more reliable than one person's agenda-
distorted memory.)

Gee, Frank: the viewpoint doesn't agree with yours, so the person
expressing that viewpoint is memory impaired and not objective. Sigh....

Seems to me that you're yet another safety missionary who wants to
remove the mote from the cyclists' eye, while ignoring the beam in the
motorist's eye.

Or in less biblical terms, you're disparaging cycling. Why do the safety
freaks always disparage cycling?

Again, Frank: I don't see where this poster (or I, or any other poster)
"disparaged cycling."

Very little is accomplished by you calling names ("freaks"), labeling
people as simplistically as you do, or leveling unfounded accusations
(that anybody is advocating either mandatory helmet legislation, or
preventing you from legally riding your bike helmet-free).

If you don't want to wear a helmet while cycling, Frank, that's okay.
I'd be interested to hear if there's anybody on this NG who thinks that
it's not okay for you to make that choice.

I submit, however, that it is a worthwhile endeavor to attempt to inform
new cyclists as to the downside of helmet use and the likely upside in
minimizing injury in the event of a crash.

Neil



--

 

[Roger Zoul]

George Washburn wrote:

:: The second was a guy riding down a long hill. Again, according to
:: witnesses he tried to ride up a driveway and lost control. He went
:: head first into a retaining wall. Out cold when I got there. I don't
:: know
:: what happened to him but I'm pretty sure neither of these guys would
:: have been in such bad shape if they had been wearing a helmet.
::

What makes you so sure?

 

[Frank Krygowski]

R15757 wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote in part:
>
> << And pedestrian traffic deaths far outnumber cyclist traffic deaths. The
> same is true for pedestrian head injury deaths, either in absolute
> numbers or on a per-hour basis. >>
>
> I don't doubt this last one is true, but what is your source for the number of
> pedestrian head injuries on a per hour basis, and cyclist head injuries on a
> per hour basis?
>
> Robert

Absolute numbers - ped fatalities are several thousand per year (for
example, 6500 in 1992 in the US). Bike fatalities that year were about
700. Data from World Almanac, 1992. Brain injuries are responsible for
roughly 2/3 of all accidental deaths (but people never mention that,
except for bike fatalities). Various sources on that one - I'd have to
dig for a while to find a specific quote.

Per hour data is tougher to come by. One source is "Head Injuries and
Bicycle Helmet Laws," D.L. Robinson, Accident Analysis and Prevention,
vol 28, no. 4, pp. 463-475, 1996. Head injury deaths per million hours
for four groups listed are: cyclists, 0.19; pedestrians, 0.34; motor
vehicle occupants, 0.17; motorcyclists, 2.9

That's data from Queensland, Australia. If you've got different data,
I'd like to see it.

--
-------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

neil0502 wrote: [but I'm going to edit a bit. Neil's post is very
unclear as to who wrote what. I'm going to attempt to insert double >>
before what I actually said.] [Neil, please learn how to respond
correctly!]

> Originally posted by Frank Krygowski
>>
>> So, George, in your 14 years on that job, have you ever seen any
>> motorists who were head injured?
>>
>> How about pedestrians?
>>
>> Please tell us a couple tales about them.
>>
>> Because it seems that motorists suffer far more serious head injuries
>> than cyclists. Motorists are about 50% of America's head injury
>> fatalities, for example. Cyclists are less than 1%.
>>
>> And pedestrian traffic deaths far outnumber cyclist traffic deaths. The
>> same is true for pedestrian head injury deaths, either in absolute
>> numbers or on a per-hour basis.
>
> I'm still looking for sound reasons for not wearing a bicycle helmet.
> I've read people's comments that helmets are not particularly
> comfortable, may be warmer than not wearing one, and that they may alter
> the environmental sounds that you hear while riding.
>
> For me (again, YMMV), those are pretty small prices to pay (many of them
> can also be dramatically mitigated through appropriate helmet selection
> and fitting)--especially as one who took a header over the bars ten days
> ago on an mtb ride, landing smack dab on my $20 Bell and putting a 4"
> hole in it. Feel secure in saying: that would have been my head.
>
> The reason I continue to play advocate here is simple: there's a very
> vocal and adamant group of people on this NG who would have us believe
> that helmets are useless, or worse. I think it's reasonable to present
> new cyclists with an opposing viewpoint that says, quite simply, wearing
> a (properly selected, well-fitting) helmet probably won't hurt you, and
> it could minimize your injuries in the event of a crash.

It's possible your helmet did protect you in that fall. And it's
possible it didn't. Such accidents can't be reproduced in tests.

But the data from large populations that suddenly adopted helmets makes
things pretty clear: despite all the interesting stories helmet
proponents generate, the protective effect against serious head injuries
is barely detectable, if at all. Such data completely belies the most
frequent claim of helmet effectiveness, the "85% reduction" claim.

Furthermore, data on sources of serious head injuries makes something
else clear: cycling is NOT a significant source! It's danger, either in
absolute terms or relative terms, is not significantly worse than the
danger of walking near traffic or riding in a car.

This doesn't mean that you can't wear a helmet while cycling. Wearing a
helmet is just as legal as wearing purple bike shorts - it's up to you.

But it does open the question: why would you recommend it to someone?
Why recommend an unproven protective measure against an imaginary hazard?


Now let me qualify that a bit: if you're a person who's going to be
thrashing around woods and rocks on a mountain bike, you almost
certainly are at real risk of hitting your head. And the hit (unlike
most serious bike crashes) is probably within the narrow window of a
helmet's protection.

Personally, I avoid such riding. I was once on a mountain bike ride
where I didn't follow the group on an insane jump, specifically because
I had no helmet. Sure enough, one of the helmeted heroes broke either
his shoulder or collar bone - I was never sure which.


>>statistics are much more reliable than one person's agenda-
>>distorted memory.)

>Gee, Frank: the viewpoint doesn't agree with yours, so the person
>expressing that viewpoint is memory impaired and not objective. >Sigh....

I've been through this point with many other similar posters, Neil.
We've had brain injury rehabilitation people post tales like the above,
and I've talked to similar people in person.

When confronted with the national statistics, they've always admitted
that they see hardly any cyclists - that almost all their patients are
motor vehicle operators. For example, one such person admitted there
had been only one cyclist in seven years of full-time work, and that
cyclist was a racer - i.e. probably helmeted at the time of the crash.

So when I get another "If you saw what I saw" story, I'm quite sure
they're not representing things impartially.


>>Or in less biblical terms, you're disparaging cycling. Why do the
>>safety freaks always disparage cycling?

>Again, Frank: I don't see where this poster (or I, or any other poster)
>"disparaged cycling."

Someone saying cycling is so unusually dangerous that a helmet is
necessary is disparaging cycling. Sorry, but that's the fact.

>>Very little is accomplished by you calling names ("freaks"),

Well, I'm sorry if that offended. In that context, the word "freak"
isn't necessarily an insult. Haven't you ever called yourself a bike
freak? I certainly have.


>> or leveling unfounded accusations
>>(that anybody is advocating either mandatory helmet legislation, or
>>preventing you from legally riding your bike helmet-free).

>>If you don't want to wear a helmet while cycling, Frank, that's okay.
>>I'd be interested to hear if there's anybody on this NG who thinks
>>that it's not okay for you to make that choice.

Like it or not, the positions of the two sides in this debate are NOT
symmetrical. Helmet skeptics tend to give scientific findings from
large populations, actual assessments of actual helmet use, numerical
figures from impact tests, comparative numerical data on the safety of
cycling ... and helmet skeptics NEVER say helmet use should be outlawed.

Helmet promoters tend to re-use only one number ("85%") from one tiny,
discredited study. They give scare stories and anecdotes, avoid
comparative data ... and DO say bareheaded cycling should be outlawed.

The most prominent pro-helmet website is quite upfront about its
author's enthusiasm for mandatory helmet laws, and not just for kids.
Likewise, Safe Kids Inc. pushes for all-ages helmet laws, with kids'
laws being the first step. And helmets have been mandated for kids in
many states, as well as for all ages in Australia, New Zealand, Spain,
and several US municipalities.

You may think this is all fine, but I don't. Especially since
imposition of helmet laws and helmet promotion has been shown to
seriously reduce cycling.

I am consciously pro-cycling. I see overenthusiastic helmet promotion
as being anti-cycling. So I'll tell what I know about the issue, using
actual facts.

I can't generate many weird anecdotes, anyway. I've had only one
super-slow on-road fall in over 30 years, and I've never come close to
hitting my head. Not very remarkable.

Just like most cyclists' experiences, I dare say.


--
-------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[R15757]

Frank K wrote in part:

<< Per hour data is tougher to come by. One source is "Head Injuries and
Bicycle Helmet Laws," D.L. Robinson, Accident Analysis and Prevention,
vol 28, no. 4, pp. 463-475, 1996. Head injury deaths per million hours
for four groups listed are: cyclists, 0.19; pedestrians, 0.34; motor
vehicle occupants, 0.17; motorcyclists, 2.9

That's data from Queensland, Australia. If you've got different data,
I'd like to see it.
>>

I got nothin'. Thanks for the citation. What really jumps out there is that .34
for peds as opposed to .17 for motor vehicles. I would be interested to see how
Robinson gathered his numbers. Do you know? The suggestion that walking around
is twice as likely as driving to result in a head injury _death_ I find
far-fetched.

Robert