Helmet saves life of bike store owner hit by car......



P

psycholist

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:39:41 GMT, mrbubl <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/news/localnews/tv/stories/wfaa041101_am_bikesvscars.15f1ef12.html

>
> #include helmet_saved_my_life_rebuttal.txt
>
> 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


Really? And how many incidents do you suppose never got reported where
someone fell and hit their head while wearing a helmet. They were fine, so
they just rode on and nobody knew about it or counted it in some tally.
Whereas if they weren't wearing a helmet ...

Bob C.
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:15:27 -0500, "psycholist" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>Really? And how many incidents do you suppose never got reported where
>someone fell and hit their head while wearing a helmet. They were fine, so
>they just rode on and nobody knew about it or counted it in some tally.
>Whereas if they weren't wearing a helmet ...


LOL! This is the point where I usually quote my "knitted woolen
balaclava saved my life" anecdote. Quite where people get the idea
that cycle crashes were all fatal before the invention of PFDBs I
really don't know, but all the facts show that head injuries are
highest where helmet use is highest, and lowest where it is lowest.

This is hardly a surprise. The few studies which have attempted to
rank the relative merits of different cycle safety interventions all
appear to put helmets at the bottom, and rightly so, because all the
others focus on crash prevention and reduction of danger at source,
not injury mitigation.

There is also a truly bizarre notion going around that helmets are
designed to save lives, and have some proven efficacy in crashes
involving motor vehicles. The manufacturers and standards bodies say
otherwise.

I wouldn't care, except that several governments now have the official
view that the only thing preventing compulsion is low wearing rates.
That means they interpret everybody who wears a helmet as being a vote
in favour of compulsion. The fact that compulsion has been tried and
failed doesn't seem to cut much ice with the handwringers,
unfortunately, and neither does the fact that cycling is neither
especially dangerous nor especially productive of head injuries. The
head injury rate (%HI) for cycling is pretty consistently the same as
for pedestrians, and in both cases the majority cause of fatal injury
is road traffic crashes involving motor vehicles.

Anybody who is genuinely serious about cyclist safety must realise
that the helmet sideshow is a dangerous distraction from the real
business of cycle safety. Our National Cycling Strategy Board summed
it up perfectly, I think:

"Arguments that appear to disavow the efficacy or utility of cycle
helmet wearing, or on the other hand claim it as the major influence
in reducing injury to cyclists, are both wide of the mark. In
particular, campaigns seeking to present cycling as an inevitably
dangerous or hazardous activity, or which suggest that helmet wearing
should be made compulsory, risk prejudicing the delivery of those very
benefits to health and environment which cycling can deliver: they
also serve to confuse the general public about the wider social and
economic advantages of cycling. As a result, the NCS Board is anxious
that the question of wearing helmets is placed in its proper context."

In the case of the UK, the proper context is that cycling head
injuries account for a tiny percentage of child head injuries, and
exactly ten deaths in the last year for which we have figures. The
leading causes of head injuries in children are trips and falls
(especially from playground equipment), striking fixed objects (i.e.
just plain hitting their heads) and the like. Around six times as
many children suffer serious head injury as pedestrians than as
cyclists, and the %HI is rather higher for ped v car than for cyclist
v car. All this is detail and minutiae. On the other hand, the
leading helmet promoters in the UK publish figures of 88% head injury
saving (lie: TR&T accepted ten years ago that this was wrong); 50
child head injury deaths per year (lie: it's 10; they claim it's an
"estimate based on under-reporting" - of child fatalities?!? Give me a
break!); 22,500 hospital treatments annually (lie: this is treatments
in hospitals, minor injury clinics and GP clinics combined, the figure
for hospital admissions is about 2,000) and so on.

Question: if the case is so compelling, why is it necessary to lie?

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
 
P

psycholist

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:15:27 -0500, "psycholist" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
>>Really? And how many incidents do you suppose never got


Interesting argument. You presented a bunch of data and findings and any
that you didn't agree with you called "lies."

And none of it addressed what I said. If a cyclist has a bad fall and hits
his head and the helmet does its job and he/she gets up and rides happily on
his/her merry way, they don't end up in any statistics. But they were quite
possibly saved from serious injury by a helmet.

As for me, I was hit head-on by a teenage driver talking on a cell phone who
made an unsignaled left hand turn right into my path. It was at an
intersection and there were several witnesses. It was reported that, after
I slammed into the front fender, I then went into the windshield which
launched me straight up into the air. I landed squarely on my head. I
sustained a broken hip, pelvis ankle and a compression fracture of the
spine. I had a major laceration of the lower leg. My helmet was destroyed.
I had NO head injuries. Zero. None.

You can argue statistics and findings and such all day long. They don't
capture the incidents like the one I cited at the outset of this post. Nor
am I aware of any statisticians who were present to record my awful episode.
I don't believe any of the statistics on helmets that I read and hear. I
don't believe anyone is accurately recording these incidents.

You're free to believe whatever foolish thing you want to believe. I'm not
arguing for mandatory helmet laws. I just know that I'm very glad I had my
helmet on when I was hit. And it's my opinion that any serious cyclist who
logs serious mileage is playing a foolish game of roulette if they believe
they'll never get hit. And let me ask you something. If you knew you were
going to get hit, would you rather be wearing a helmet or not?

Bob C.

Bob C.
 
A

AustinMN

Guest
psycholist wrote:
> As for me, I was hit head-on by a teenage driver talking on a cell phone
> who made an unsignaled left hand turn right into my path. It was at an
> intersection and there were several witnesses. It was reported that,
> after I slammed into the front fender, I then went into the windshield
> which launched me straight up into the air. I landed squarely on my head.
> I sustained a broken hip, pelvis ankle and a compression fracture of the
> spine. I had a major laceration of the lower leg. My helmet was
> destroyed. I had NO head injuries. Zero. None.


I have heard of similar accidents whith similar outcomes without a helmet.
One such story gets posted here from time to time by an eyewitness. Your
experience really is meaningless, no matter how much you believe it.

Think about this. If the helmet protected your head, and your head was
attached to your body, and (I am assuming here) the spinal compression
injury occured when your head made impact, why wasn't your spine protected
by the helmet?

> You're free to believe whatever foolish thing you want to believe.


As are you.

> If you knew you were going to get hit, would you rather be wearing a
> helmet or not?


Based on what I have seen and read about rotational injuries (most serious
of head injuries, and potentially made worse by helmets), I'd rather not
have the helmet. It's safer.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:23:40 -0500, "psycholist" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>Interesting argument. You presented a bunch of data and findings and any
>that you didn't agree with you called "lies."


No, there are genuine research papers on both sides, and reasons for
the discrepancy between them, but these claims are lies: the group in
question have made them in advertisements, and the body which
regulates advertisements has ruled that they are lies.

In particular the figure of 50 cycling child head fatalities per year,
also made by their leader on national TV, is a bald-faced lie. It is
over twice the total for all causes, and to say (as they do) that 80%
of fatal child cycling head injuries go unrecorded is simply absurd.
All fatal child head injuries in the last year for which we have
figures, were the result of road traffic crashes; the under-reporting
rate for fatal cyclist road traffic crashes is officially 0%,
according to our Transport Research Laboratory. It is a lie, plain
and simple

>And none of it addressed what I said. If a cyclist has a bad fall and hits
>his head and the helmet does its job and he/she gets up and rides happily on
>his/her merry way, they don't end up in any statistics. But they were quite
>possibly saved from serious injury by a helmet.


And if the cyclist falls off and never hits their head and they
weren't wearing a plastic hat, that doesn't get reported either. And
if the cyclist never crashes in the first place (i.e. to a first
approximation all rides), that doesn't either.

So you have to go to proper, population-level statistics. The CPSC
says that over ten years the cyclist head injury rate rose by 10%,
cycling reduced by 21% and helmet use increased threefold from 18% to
50% - so risk increased by around 40%. That says to me that helmets
are irrelevant in that context, the context of injuries serious enough
to get recorded. Do helmets prevent 90% of trivial injuries? It
wouldn't surprise me, and I wouldn't consider that a compelling case
for wearing a helmet.

>As for me, I was hit head-on by a teenage driver talking on a cell phone who
>made an unsignaled left hand turn right into my path. It was at an
>intersection and there were several witnesses. It was reported that, after
>I slammed into the front fender, I then went into the windshield which
>launched me straight up into the air. I landed squarely on my head. I
>sustained a broken hip, pelvis ankle and a compression fracture of the
>spine. I had a major laceration of the lower leg. My helmet was destroyed.
>I had NO head injuries. Zero. None.


And in a similar crash I too suffered no cuts and only minor
concussion, despite being thrown 15ft through the air. My life was
saved by my Millets knitted acrylic balaclava. And because balaclavas
don't degrade in UV, I still have it to save my life today!

So much for that.

What is scary here is that people prey on the fear of traffic to push
helmets *which are not specified for traffic crashes*. And the more
helmet-saved-my-life anecdotes we hear, the more people are going to
think "shall I blow that stop sign? It's OK, I'm wearing a helmet!"
There is a lot of research which shows that people who perceive
themselves to be protected, take more risks - there can be no possible
good outcome from exaggerating the benefits of helmet use.

>You can argue statistics and findings and such all day long. They don't
>capture the incidents like the one I cited at the outset of this post.


And guess what? They don't need to. Because every single cycle crash
is a unique event. So all we can ever do is collect together enough
of them to draw inferences - the concept of "statistical
significance". The bigger the sample, the more accurate the result.
There are two really big sample sets out there, Australia and New
Zealand - and in neither case was there any ,measurable benefit from
massive increases in helmet use. So either they are essentially
worthless against serious injuries, or whatever benefit they have is
outweighed by risk compensatory behaviour. Bolstered, no doubt, by
the routine overstating of the benefits of helmets. Ask anyone how
good helmets are, they will likely say "they prevent 85% of head
injuries" even though that figure is flat wrong, being derived from
comparing entirely different groups of cyclists. The original
authors' subsequent estimates are much lower, and even then at the
upper end of the range of estimates.

>I don't believe any of the statistics on helmets that I read and hear. I
>don't believe anyone is accurately recording these incidents.


Fine. So you believe that - what - large numbers of cyclists who were
injured when unhelmeted simply went home, but after the helmet laws
they decided to present at hospital to make the figures look bad?

How do you account for the 40% increase in head injury risk for US
cyclists as lid use rose from 18% to 50%? Do tell.

>You're free to believe whatever foolish thing you want to believe.


Me? I don't believe anything. I'm utterly sceptical. I certainly
don't believe people who quote figures which are not just wrong, but
easily checked.

>I'm not
>arguing for mandatory helmet laws. I just know that I'm very glad I had my
>helmet on when I was hit. And it's my opinion that any serious cyclist who
>logs serious mileage is playing a foolish game of roulette if they believe
>they'll never get hit. And let me ask you something. If you knew you were
>going to get hit, would you rather be wearing a helmet or not?


I'd rather be riding my recumbent, where the chance of head injury is
very much less. Oh, wait, I usually am!

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
 
M

mrbubl

Guest
AustinMN wrote:
> psycholist wrote:
>
>> As for me, I was hit head-on by a teenage driver talking on a cell
>> phone who made an unsignaled left hand turn right into my path. It
>> was at an intersection and there were several witnesses. It was
>> reported that, after I slammed into the front fender, I then went into
>> the windshield which launched me straight up into the air. I landed
>> squarely on my head. I sustained a broken hip, pelvis ankle and a
>> compression fracture of the spine. I had a major laceration of the
>> lower leg. My helmet was destroyed. I had NO head injuries. Zero.
>> None.

>
>
> I have heard of similar accidents whith similar outcomes without a
> helmet. One such story gets posted here from time to time by an
> eyewitness. Your experience really is meaningless, no matter how much
> you believe it.
>
> Think about this. If the helmet protected your head, and your head was
> attached to your body, and (I am assuming here) the spinal compression
> injury occured when your head made impact, why wasn't your spine
> protected by the helmet?
>
>> You're free to believe whatever foolish thing you want to believe.

>
>
> As are you.
>
>> If you knew you were going to get hit, would you rather be wearing a
>> helmet or not?

>
>
> Based on what I have seen and read about rotational injuries (most
> serious of head injuries, and potentially made worse by helmets), I'd
> rather not have the helmet. It's safer.
>
> Austin



We all make choices and decisions on our own perceived wisdom. I am
a firm believer in the right to make a choice, your choice and then
either live or die, literally in some cases with that choice.

In three decades of experience in emergency medicine I have to err on
the side of the Styrofoam hat be that right, wrong or indifferent. My
personal choice and opinion should someone drive up and ask. Your
actual experience may differ.

Where the collective "we" run into problems and challenge is where "we"
support our own opinions onto others to make a less informed choice. As
the adage goes about a horse to water....

If not wearing a helmet on your head is safer for you and yours, more
power to yah and hope you are an organ donor so your choices may help
others.

mrbubl
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:41:11 GMT, mrbubl <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>If not wearing a helmet on your head is safer for you and yours, more
>power to yah and hope you are an organ donor so your choices may help
>others.


Oops, you spoiled it at the end there. Once again, if the facts are
so clear (a) why do the helmet lobby always give the highest figures
available, even when they know they are wrong, and (b) why do the
jurisdictions which have introduced laws not show the benefit?

That is the fundamental question for me. I am perfectly prepared to
believe helmets might prevent most trivial injuries, some more serious
ones, and even a few major ones. But the real world figures show that
overall there is no measurable benefit from even large scale increases
in helmet use, so there is clearly something else going on. I'd quite
like to know what it is, and preferably without being part of the
experiment. And actually I've not seen any figures which examine the
differential effect of helmets and any other kind of hat against scalp
injuries.

For myself, I reduce my risk of head injury by:

- riding safely and confidently
- planning my route to avoid the more senseless examples of road
planning
- wearing conspicuous clothing and mounting a flag on the bike
- using lights at night or in poor viability (permanently mounted,
dynamo-powered, always there and always ready)
- riding a bike where if I crash I will hit feet first or **** first,
not head first
- avoiding sucker-bait cycle "farcilities" like shared use pavements,
narrow cycle lanes and so on

The government could do some things to make my head safer. For
example:

- enforce traffic laws
- take dangerous drivers off the streets
- enforce meaningful penalties for dangerous and lethal driving
(current average penalty for killing a cyclist is a fine of under
$400 and six penalty points - 12 is a ban)
- shoot clueless traffic planners (OK, sack them, then)
- extend home zones and other traffic calming programmes

All these would benefit me, and make my head safer. Oh, and they
would also reduce the toll of pedestrian head injuries (six times as
many of them). Oh, and they would probably reduce the overall road
death toll as well.

All the above is based on good, sound evidence, some of it from
actual, measurable, delivered reductions in cyclist injuries. I keep
coming back to that because it is important: helmet-centred campaigns
have never to my knowledge delivered any measurable improvement in
injury rates. Looking at the big picture, helmets seem to me
essentially irrelevant. By the time the helmet comes into play, the
safety system has already failed, and if a motor vehicle is involved
all bets are off. Any improvement due to the helmet is blind luck and
nothing else; there must logically be at least as many cases where the
helmet made it worse or caused the crash in the first place, otherwise
we simply would not be having this discussion.

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
 
D

Dan

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:23:40 -0500, "psycholist" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
>>Interesting argument. You presented a bunch of data and findings and
>>any that you didn't agree with you called "lies."

>
> I've seen these arguments so many times and always wanted to say

something but never have. It's so simple, if you don't care about your
safety, then don't wear a helmet. If you hit your noggin', you're gonna
be a vegetable or die more than likely. You're body can take alot of
abuse
but your head cannot. Here in Texas, you have the option, I don't care
what others do to look cool, but I look pretty cool as a walking,talking
Texan that wears a helmet. All I can say is if you don't, instead of a
vegatable that i have to support with my taxes, I hope you die,
painlessly
of course. As an EMT, I was shown a picture of a guy that was riding a
bike
and was hit by a car. The guy was laying on the ground, his eyes open,
looking at his brain laying in front of him that had popped out of the
front of his skull. Maybe, if he had a helmet on, this could have been
prevented, maybe not.
 
A

AustinMN

Guest
mrbubl wrote:

> If not wearing a helmet on your head is safer for you and yours, more
> power to yah and hope you are an organ donor so your choices may help
> others.
>
> mrbubl


Do you say this about pedestrians that don't wear helmets? Because there
are 5 times as many pedestrians than cyclists that receive head injuries (in
the US).

How about those taking a shower without a helmet? Again, many times as many
people receiving head injuries from shower use than bicycle use. How about
using a step ladder or driving in a car? All many, many times more likely
to result in a head injury. They better all be organ donors so that their
choices can help the rest of us out.

Your statement, on it's face, makes the utterly invalid assumption that
cycling is dangerous. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Austin (who takes real risks by climbing stairs without a helmet)
 
A

AustinMN

Guest
Dan wrote:
> As an EMT, I was shown a picture of a guy that was riding a
> bike
> and was hit by a car. The guy was laying on the ground, his eyes open,
> looking at his brain laying in front of him that had popped out of the
> front of his skull. Maybe, if he had a helmet on, this could have been
> prevented, maybe not.


Do you honestly believe that a 50 cent piece of Styrofoam that can be
crushed with a finger would protect a skull (which, by the way, is many,
many times harder than the Styrofoam hat) from that kind of trauma? If
that's the extent of your intelligence I don't want you to respond should I
ever need an EMT.

If bicycle helmets could protect from this kind of injury, then they need to
be required for much more dangerous activities such as climbing stairs,
walking, or taking a shower.

Austin
 
P

Pete

Guest
"Dan" <[email protected]> wrote

> I've seen these arguments so many times and always wanted to say
> something but never have. It's so simple, if you don't care about your
> safety, then don't wear a helmet. If you hit your noggin', you're gonna
> be a vegetable or die more than likely. You're body can take alot of
> abuse
> but your head cannot.


If bike crashes are really that injurious/fatal, and helmets are really that
helpful...why are there still cyclists? Why didn't we all die off in the
~100 years between the invention of the bike, and the invention of the bike
helmet?

Pete
 
S

Scott Ehardt

Guest
"AustinMN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> mrbubl wrote:
> Do you say this about pedestrians that don't wear helmets? Because there
> are 5 times as many pedestrians than cyclists that receive head injuries

(in
> the US).
>
> How about those taking a shower without a helmet? Again, many times as

many
> people receiving head injuries from shower use than bicycle use. How

about
> using a step ladder or driving in a car? All many, many times more likely
> to result in a head injury. They better all be organ donors so that their
> choices can help the rest of us out.
>


I am not taking sides on this issue, but I will point out that in this form
your statistics are useless. Comparing number of showering injuries to
number of bicycling injuries is completely irrelevant. If you wanted to
prove something going in that direction, you would need to compare "injuries
per man-hour of showering vs. bicycling" or at the least "number of cycling
injuries per cyclist vs. number of showering injuries per showerer"

-Scott Ehardt
http://www.scehardt.com
 
M

mrbubl

Guest
AustinMN wrote:
> mrbubl wrote:
>
>> If not wearing a helmet on your head is safer for you and yours, more
>> power to yah and hope you are an organ donor so your choices may help
>> others.
>>
>> mrbubl

>
>
> Do you say this about pedestrians that don't wear helmets? Because
> there are 5 times as many pedestrians than cyclists that receive head
> injuries (in the US).


Numbers..pedestrians vs cyclist. Compare apples to apples and your
actual mileage may vary.
>
> How about those taking a shower without a helmet? Again, many times as
> many people receiving head injuries from shower use than bicycle use.
> How about using a step ladder or driving in a car?


How about wearing seat belts, smoking anything on a regular basis,
drinking alcohol to excess. If there were people that wore an approved
helmet that fell from step ladders or people driving cars in accidents
wore helmets that would present more moot points. How does a race care
driver survive a 100g force crash to walk away?? DId their helmet help?

All many, many times
> more likely to result in a head injury. They better all be organ donors
> so that their choices can help the rest of us out.


That would certainly help the organ availability crisis in the US.

>
> Your statement, on it's face, makes the utterly invalid assumption that
> cycling is dangerous. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Dangerous is a relative term. That pesky proactive action versus
reactive actions come in to play. I don't ride thinking it's dangerous
but have a reasonable expectation that those around me that directly
influence what happens to me share the same expectations.

The beauty is that you can make your own choices.
>
> Austin (who takes real risks by climbing stairs without a helmet)


mrbubl (wears a variety of helmets where appropriate and organ donor by
choice)
 
S

Super Slinky

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? says...
> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:41:11 GMT, mrbubl <[email protected]> wrote
> in message <[email protected]>:
>
> >If not wearing a helmet on your head is safer for you and yours, more
> >power to yah and hope you are an organ donor so your choices may help
> >others.

>
> Oops, you spoiled it at the end there. Once again, if the facts are
> so clear (a) why do the helmet lobby always give the highest figures
> available, even when they know they are wrong, and (b) why do the
> jurisdictions which have introduced laws not show the benefit?
>
> That is the fundamental question for me. I am perfectly prepared to
> believe helmets might prevent most trivial injuries, some more serious
> ones, and even a few major ones. But the real world figures show that
> overall there is no measurable benefit from even large scale increases
> in helmet use, so there is clearly something else going on. I'd quite
> like to know what it is, and preferably without being part of the
> experiment. And actually I've not seen any figures which examine the
> differential effect of helmets and any other kind of hat against scalp
> injuries.


I dislike wearing helmets and in my instinctive dislike for them I see a
few things that might explain why they don't seem to help much. Helmets
are hot in the peak summer riding months and can increase sweat,
dehydration and heat exhaustion. They do nothing but decrease comfort
and are a distraction. Not only are they hot, but the straps cut into
the skin and there is a fine line between having them too loose and too
tight. I see a high percentage of helmet wearers with the helmet sitting
lopsided on their head. They are one more thing to fiddle with when the
rider could be concentrating on his riding and traffic. Bike helmets
protect the top of the head almost exclusively, the least likely place
for impact. The face, ears, and even the back of the neck have
significant exposure. A blow to the face will mean that the helmet will
deflect the force to the lower face, jaw, etc--not necessarily a
significant help. Helmets make the head a much bigger target. Near
misses become impacts. We actually have good instincts for protecting
our heads and some riders may short circuit these instincts in an
accident and try to protect other parts of their bodies.
 
Z

Zoot Katz

Guest
Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:47:00 GMT,
<[email protected]>,
mrbubl <[email protected]> proselytised:
\snip sos
>How does a race care
>driver survive a 100g force crash to walk away?? DId their helmet help?

\whack a doodle etc.

Their helmet has its own restraint system to keep it from breaking
their necks.

Apples and pineapples.
--
zk
 
P

psycholist

Guest
"Super Slinky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Just zis Guy, you know? says...
>> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:41:11 GMT, mrbubl <[email protected]> wrote
>> in message <[email protected]>:
>>
>> >If not wearing a helmet on your head is safer for you and yours, more
>> >power to yah and hope you are an organ donor so your choices may help
>> >others.

>>
>> Oops, you spoiled it at the end there. Once again, if the facts are
>> so clear (a) why do the helmet lobby always give the highest figures
>> available, even when they know they are wrong, and (b) why do the
>> jurisdictions which have introduced laws not show the benefit?
>>
>> That is the fundamental question for me. I am perfectly prepared to
>> believe helmets might prevent most trivial injuries, some more serious
>> ones, and even a few major ones. But the real world figures show that
>> overall there is no measurable benefit from even large scale increases
>> in helmet use, so there is clearly something else going on. I'd quite
>> like to know what it is, and preferably without being part of the
>> experiment. And actually I've not seen any figures which examine the
>> differential effect of helmets and any other kind of hat against scalp
>> injuries.

>
> I dislike wearing helmets and in my instinctive dislike for them I see a
> few things that might explain why they don't seem to help much. Helmets
> are hot in the peak summer riding months and can increase sweat,
> dehydration and heat exhaustion. They do nothing but decrease comfort
> and are a distraction. Not only are they hot, but the straps cut into
> the skin and there is a fine line between having them too loose and too
> tight. I see a high percentage of helmet wearers with the helmet sitting
> lopsided on their head. They are one more thing to fiddle with when the
> rider could be concentrating on his riding and traffic. Bike helmets
> protect the top of the head almost exclusively, the least likely place
> for impact. The face, ears, and even the back of the neck have
> significant exposure. A blow to the face will mean that the helmet will
> deflect the force to the lower face, jaw, etc--not necessarily a
> significant help. Helmets make the head a much bigger target. Near
> misses become impacts. We actually have good instincts for protecting
> our heads and some riders may short circuit these instincts in an
> accident and try to protect other parts of their bodies.


Geez. I hope you learned to fit your bike better than you learned to fit
whatever helmet you may have tried. This is just simply ridiculous.

Bob C.