Helmets in TdF

Just zis Guy said:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:08:20 -0600, Rich <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Given your inabilty to even properly read and understand the statements
I've made, I find it difficult you understand much of anything.

I think you are confusing understanding with agreeing. It is
perfectly possible to understand every word you say and still
disagree.

Absolutely! But in my case, I'd replace Guy's words "perfectly
possible" with "ridiculously easy."

Seriously, Rich, your typical post is three lines of strongly-held
personal opinion with no corroboration, no references. Why not read
some of www.cyclehelmets.org, get up to speed on the discussions, and
start discussing things at a higher level?

- Frank Krygowski

Just zis Guy said:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:41:56 GMT, SMS <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I don't like to see is dismissing the benefit of helmets based solely on
the studies that show no reduction in numbers of deaths or injuries with
increasing helmet use. Yet this is the sole argument used by the
anti-helmet use people.

I permit myself a wry smile here. Even if this were the sole argument
used by sceptics (and by the way there are vanishingly few who are
actually "anti-helmet", that's a straw man used to discredit
sceptics), why would you have a problem with it?

Because such statistics are being used in a dishonest manner. These
statistics point to the fact that mandatory helmet laws are not
necessary, because the problem that they purport to solve, they have no
effect on solving, mainly because it's not a real problem.

Quoted message said:

There are six jurisdictions which show more than forty percentage
points increase in helmet use as a result of laws. Not one of them
shows a consequent reduction in head injuries. You don't think that
might be significant?

This does point to the fact that MHLs have no effect on injury rates.

Of course you realize that the case for helmets, especially in the TDF,
is that there is a high likelihood of crashes in some of the stages.
Most of these crashes will not result in head impacts, but in the ones
that do, the helmet does provide protection. All the studies that
compared how helmeted cyclists fared in a crash, versus non-helmeted
cyclists, show a benefit in helmet use.

Just zis Guy said:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:34:50 GMT, SMS <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Yet however little it is, it has been proven that they do make a very
big difference in terms of both fatalities, and the severity of
injuries, when crashes involving an impact to the head occur.

Er, no it hasn't. It has been proven that they are quite effective at
preventing minor injuries, but I don't know of any robust evidence at
all that they have any measurable effect on serious or fatal injuries.

Read the studies. There is plenty of robust evidence if you open your mind.

Quoted message said:

It would be remarkable if they did, given that no manufacturer of
which I'm aware makes such a claim, and the standards are the
equivalent of a fall from a stationary or slow-moving bike, a type of
crash that cyclists have been surviving for a hundred years.

Perhaps you can show me a cycle helmet which is claimed by the
manufacturer to be effective in reducing risk of serious injury or
death?

Wow, you really are clueless. No manufacturer of any safety device can
claim that without opening themselves up to enormous liability. You are
trying to extrapolate "Helmets cannot always protect against injury"
into a claim that the helmets are ineffective, yet all the evidence is
against you.

Just zis Guy said:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:57:26 -0600, Rich <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Lessening the damage done when the brain crashes into the interior of
the skull is the purpose of helments. That's why they're made of foam.

And they will reduce the energy of a 30mph crash to only that of a
27.5mph crash. Which /might/ make a difference, although to be fair
the crash /might/ not have happened if the rider didn't think they
were better protected than they are in the first place.

Once again, you fail to understand that 30 mph crash, does not involve a
30mph impact to the head. But of course you really do understand that!

Quoted message said:

This is, of course, moot, since current thinking has it that torsional
forces are responsible for most permanently disabling brain injury.

Whose thinking would that be?

I submit that on or about Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:03:36 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't like to see is dismissing the benefit of helmets based solely on
the studies that show no reduction in numbers of deaths or injuries with
increasing helmet use. Yet this is the sole argument used by the
anti-helmet use people.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I permit myself a wry smile here. Even if this were the sole argument
used by sceptics (and by the way there are vanishingly few who are
actually "anti-helmet", that's a straw man used to discredit
sceptics), why would you have a problem with it?

Quoted message said:

Because such statistics are being used in a dishonest manner. These
statistics point to the fact that mandatory helmet laws are not
necessary, because the problem that they purport to solve, they have no
effect on solving, mainly because it's not a real problem.

Er, no, they also point to the fact that helmets have no discernible
effect on head injury rates as recorded in real populations. In fact,
according to the British Government, there is no known case where
cyclist safety has improved with increasing helmet use.

Of course, laws are /also/ unnecessary, in that they seek to solve a
problem which is, by any external measure, insignificant, and they
seek to do it in a way which completely ignores the cause of the
problem (which is, in the main, careless driving).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are six jurisdictions which show more than forty percentage
points increase in helmet use as a result of laws. Not one of them
shows a consequent reduction in head injuries. You don't think that
might be significant?

Quoted message said:

This does point to the fact that MHLs have no effect on injury rates.

Just as a matter of interest, how many pro-helmet studies can you
think of which would accurately predict that zero effect on head
injury rates based on getting around half the cycling population to
start wearing helmets when they weren't before?

Quoted message said:

Of course you realize that the case for helmets, especially in the TDF,
is that there is a high likelihood of crashes in some of the stages.

So you say. And the number of riders injured and killed over the
years is... tiny, although rather higher in the first five years of
this decade than in any preceding decade, as far as I can tell.
According to the reports I've read the TdF helmet rule (as with most
helmet mandation) was the result of helmet zealots seizing the
opportunity to push their agenda, rather than any significant number
of people changing their minds. The idea that sponsors wanted their
product in the closing shots is also far more compelling than any
other justification offered for the change of rule re final climbs.

Interestingly, contemporaneous accounts stated that Kivilev had his
hands off the bars fiddling with his radio at the time of his crash.
As usual the cause was quietly ignored in the crusade to apply the
solution decided in advance...

Quoted message said:

Most of these crashes will not result in head impacts, but in the ones
that do, the helmet does provide protection. All the studies that
compared how helmeted cyclists fared in a crash, versus non-helmeted
cyclists, show a benefit in helmet use.

And all the studies which remove the false assumption that helmeted
cyclists behave exactly the same as unhelmeted, show that overall they
make no difference :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

The Wogster said:

Question is though, is the amount of foam in a typical vented bike
helmet, enough to make enough of a difference, to really reduce the
seriousness of head injuries over a large enough range to be useful.

All the evidence in comparisons between how helmeted versus non-helmeted
cyclists fare in crashes, proves that it does make a difference, though
the amount of difference it makes varies from study to study, and even
from year to year in the same study. These studies have been endlessy
quoted in these helmet threads, so don't play dumb--you are certainly
capable of finding them.

Helmet advocates quote studies that measure the relative severity of
injuries of helmet wearers versus non-helmet wearers. They have selected
the subset of cyclists that sustain head injuries in accidents, and they
conclude, correctly, that helmets reduce the severity of injuries, and
reduce the fatality rate, when accidents occur. The helmet advocates
employ the ignoratio elenchi fallacy*.

Quoted message said:

Second question, what percentage of crashes involve a helmet doing it's
job in the first place,

Depends what you mean by doing its job. If you're talking about no
injury at all, then the helmet wearer is about 75% less likely to
experience no injury at all versus the non-wearer. For more serious
injuries, and fatalities, the percentage difference is smaller, but
still significant. It's also interesting to note that the rate for
non-incapacitating injuries was slightly higher for helmeted than
non-helmeted cyclists, while it was the opposite for incapacitating
injuries. There is a danger that the AHZ's will try to take the
non-incapactitating injury data out of context, rather than come to the
logical conclusion that if not for the helmet, many of the
non-incapacitating injuries would move into a more severe category.

Quoted message said:

Last question, what is the rate of crashes, based on rider miles.
Considering that a large percentage are not serious enough to involve
going to a doctor, clinic or hospital.

That would indeed be interesting, but I have never seen any data on
that, nor on rider hours, which would also be interesting.

Quoted message said:

In answering these, please site source material.

This has been provided in numerous threads. Surely you are aware of it.
The onus is on you to prove the ineffectiveness of helmets in crashes,
since no one has ever provided any sources that showed that! We've seen
a lot of sniping at studies, but never anytbing substanitive.

The Florida study is a good place for you to start. No fantastic claims,
just statistics. Not a huge benefit is shown for helmet use, about an
18% reduction in fatalities for CY2000 (some other years show more of a
benefit, i.e. 1997), and about a 5% reduction in incapacitating injury.
These figures are normalized, the raw numbers show a huge benefit for
helmets, but you have to base the results on the actual percentages of
incidents involving a helmet being worn, versus a helmet not being worn.

I submit that on or about Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:16:30 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lessening the damage done when the brain crashes into the interior of
the skull is the purpose of helments. That's why they're made of foam.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And they will reduce the energy of a 30mph crash to only that of a
27.5mph crash. Which /might/ make a difference, although to be fair
the crash /might/ not have happened if the rider didn't think they
were better protected than they are in the first place.

Quoted message said:

Once again, you fail to understand that 30 mph crash, does not involve a
30mph impact to the head. But of course you really do understand that!

Did I say that? No.

What I said was that (because energy = 1/2 mv^2) the efficacy of
helmets tails off rapidly at impact speeds above the design speed of
12mph.

Several pro-helmet campaigners have claimed that a helmet reduces a
30mph impact to an 18mph one, but that is not the case. Once you go
above the rated capacity of the helmet not only does efficacy tail
off, but the helmet is likely to fail and absorb an unpredictable (but
substantially lower) amount of energy.

Just more reasons why there is no known case where cyclist safety has
improved with increasing helmet use.

The introduction to one helmet standard (roughly equivalent to CPSC /
EN1078) said as follows:

"[the standard] specifies requirements for helmets intended for
use by pedal cyclists on ordinary roads, particularly by young
riders in the 5 years to 14 years age group, but which may also
be suitable for use off the road. It is not intended for
high-speed or long-distance cycling, or for riders taking part in
competitive events. The level of protection offered is less than
that given by helmets for motor-cycle riders and is intended to
give protection in the kind of accident in which the rider falls
onto the road without other vehicles being involved."

Which is all very clear and unambiguous, and invites speculation as to
why those who promote helmets seem to focus almost exclusively on
those things which this standard explicitly lists as /not/ being
covered! And the tests in this standard (BS 6863:1989) are similar to
those currently used, in fact the guy who tests all the helmets coming
into the UK says the new standard is somewhat weaker, having been
written mainly by the manufacturers to support the demand for lighter,
more ventilated helmets.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is, of course, moot, since current thinking has it that torsional
forces are responsible for most permanently disabling brain injury.

Quoted message said:

Whose thinking would that be?

Quite a number of brain trauma specialists. Here's one example:
http://www.emedicine.com/radio/topic216.htm

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

I submit that on or about Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:14:37 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yet however little it is, it has been proven that they do make a very
big difference in terms of both fatalities, and the severity of
injuries, when crashes involving an impact to the head occur.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Er, no it hasn't. It has been proven that they are quite effective at
preventing minor injuries, but I don't know of any robust evidence at
all that they have any measurable effect on serious or fatal injuries.

Quoted message said:

Read the studies. There is plenty of robust evidence if you open your mind.

Which studies in particular? Cite some which provide robust and
compelling evidence that helmets prevent meaningful numbers of serious
and fatal head injuries. I can cite at least one very large study
(eight million cases) showing the opposite!

Bear in mind that as a former enthusiastic advocate of helmets I have
already shown that I am willing to be persuaded by compelling
evidence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you can show me a cycle helmet which is claimed by the
manufacturer to be effective in reducing risk of serious injury or
death?

Quoted message said:

Wow, you really are clueless. No manufacturer of any safety device can
claim that without opening themselves up to enormous liability.

If the claim stood up, they'd make it! Advertisers are very adept at
making claims in lawyer-proof ways. But no helmet manufacturer makes
any claim at all to efficacy against serious or fatal injury (quite
the opposite, in fact - they state that many foreseeable crashes will
exceed the protective capabilities of the helmet). Crucially, I have
never seen anything on any helmet packaging or promotion even implying
efficacy against motor vehicle impacts. Most helmet box art is either
a pack shot or shows offroad / stunt riding.

Of course, they don't need to make that claim on the promotional
material and open themselves up to censure from the advertising
standards bodies - they can't use the bogus 85% figure in their
advertising like they used to, so they fund Safe Kids to do it for
them!

Better still, they can go about getting their product /legally
mandated/ and save a wad of advertising dollars! It's rather
dishonest, but there you go.

Quoted message said:

You are
trying to extrapolate "Helmets cannot always protect against injury"
into a claim that the helmets are ineffective, yet all the evidence is
against you.

For some values of "all" :-) And I say that as one who, despite your
insinuations to the contrary, has read a very great deal of the
evidence. I have a library of several hundred helmet-related
documents, including all the widely-cited pro-helmet studies.

But no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that I know of
no robust evidence that helmets have any meaningful effect against
serious or fatal injury, and plenty of evidence to show they have no
such effect (or that any such effect is more than offset by increased
risk-taking among helmeted riders).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

SMS said:

All the evidence in comparisons between how helmeted versus non-helmeted
cyclists fare in crashes, proves that it does make a difference, though
the amount of difference it makes varies from study to study, and even
from year to year in the same study. These studies have been endlessy
quoted in these helmet threads, so don't play dumb--you are certainly
capable of finding them.

Quoted message said:

... If you're talking about no
injury at all, then the helmet wearer is about 75% less likely to
experience no injury at all versus the non-wearer. For more serious
injuries, and fatalities, the percentage difference is smaller, but
still significant. ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In answering these, please site source material.

This has been provided in numerous threads. Surely you are aware of it.

Quoted message said:

The Florida study is a good place for you to start. No fantastic claims,
just statistics. Not a huge benefit is shown for helmet use, about an
18% reduction in fatalities...

Am I the only one who notices that "SMS" (who's previously posted as
Stephen M. Scharf, and also as the sock puppet Joe Haddagah) seems
completely incapable of giving standard citations?

It's an interesting tactic. It makes it impossible to examine the data
to see if the paper says what he even claims, let alone to see if there
are problems with the structure of the study.

- Frank Krygowski

SMS said:

The Wogster said:

Question is though, is the amount of foam in a typical vented bike
helmet, enough to make enough of a difference, to really reduce the
seriousness of head injuries over a large enough range to be useful.

All the evidence in comparisons between how helmeted versus non-helmeted
cyclists fare in crashes, proves that it does make a difference, though
the amount of difference it makes varies from study to study, and even
from year to year in the same study. These studies have been endlessy
quoted in these helmet threads, so don't play dumb--you are certainly
capable of finding them.

Helmet advocates quote studies that measure the relative severity of
injuries of helmet wearers versus non-helmet wearers. They have selected
the subset of cyclists that sustain head injuries in accidents, and they
conclude, correctly, that helmets reduce the severity of injuries, and
reduce the fatality rate, when accidents occur. The helmet advocates
employ the ignoratio elenchi fallacy*.

You didn't really get the question, the fact that the amount of
difference varies, means that the studies are flawed. Essentially you
take a study that compares a certain number of accidents, then apply
statistical formulas to get the results the studies sponser wants it to.

Realistic studies would emulate accidents, using helmeted and unhelmeted
crash test dummies to see what forces are produced, and take known
data from other studies of real life crashes to see where those forces
fit in injury patterns.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Second question, what percentage of crashes involve a helmet doing
it's job in the first place,

Depends what you mean by doing its job. If you're talking about no
injury at all, then the helmet wearer is about 75% less likely to
experience no injury at all versus the non-wearer. For more serious
injuries, and fatalities, the percentage difference is smaller, but
still significant. It's also interesting to note that the rate for
non-incapacitating injuries was slightly higher for helmeted than
non-helmeted cyclists, while it was the opposite for incapacitating
injuries. There is a danger that the AHZ's will try to take the
non-incapactitating injury data out of context, rather than come to the
logical conclusion that if not for the helmet, many of the
non-incapacitating injuries would move into a more severe category.

Let me rephrase, what percentage of crashes involve the crown and back
of the head.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Last question, what is the rate of crashes, based on rider miles.
Considering that a large percentage are not serious enough to involve
going to a doctor, clinic or hospital.

That would indeed be interesting, but I have never seen any data on
that, nor on rider hours, which would also be interesting.

That means it's unknown..... Maybe a survey is in order?

W

I submit that on or about Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:51:22 GMT, the person
known to the court as SMS <[email hidden]> made a statement
(<[email hidden]> in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

Quoted message said:

The Florida study is a good place for you to start.

Great. As soon as you cite it, we can start there.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:34:50 GMT, SMS <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Yet however little it is, it has been proven that they do make a very
big difference in terms of both fatalities, and the severity of
injuries, when crashes involving an impact to the head occur.

Er, no it hasn't. It has been proven that they are quite effective at
preventing minor injuries, but I don't know of any robust evidence at
all that they have any measurable effect on serious or fatal injuries.

Guy
Can you give me some references to studies that demonstrate the above.
I must be either missing something in a study I have read or totally
missing some studies. I don't remember ever reading anything that was
all that convincing that helmets are effective at preventing minor
injuries.

Thanks
John Kane
Kingston ON

SMS said:

...There is plenty of robust evidence if you open your mind.

Now that reminds me...being open-minded is helpful up to a point - but not to the extent displayed by the master of self deception himself (master chaff).
You wouldn't want to open your mind as much as SMS does...his brain has fallen out.

Perhaps that's why he expouses this nonsense about helmets so much?

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Am I the only one who notices that "SMS" (who's previously posted as
Stephen M. Scharf, and also as the sock puppet Joe Haddagah) seems
completely incapable of giving standard citations?

Should he use APA format?

John_Kane said:

Can you give me some references to studies that demonstrate the above.
I must be either missing something in a study I have read or totally
missing some studies. I don't remember ever reading anything that was
all that convincing that helmets are effective at preventing minor
injuries.

LOL! OK, it's an inference I draw from the fact that the supposed
protective effect is large when scratched ears are counted as head
injuries, and zero when only serious injuries are counted :-)

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer

Dr. Long Duck Dong said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Am I the only one who notices that "SMS" (who's previously posted as
Stephen M. Scharf, and also as the sock puppet Joe Haddagah) seems
completely incapable of giving standard citations?

Should he use APA format?

Authors, title and form of publication should be enough.

Funny that he claims to have the URL at hand but does not post it.
Doesn't he want other people to read his sources?

Ingo.

Just zis Guy said:

John_Kane said:

Can you give me some references to studies that demonstrate the above.
I must be either missing something in a study I have read or totally
missing some studies. I don't remember ever reading anything that was
all that convincing that helmets are effective at preventing minor
injuries.

LOL! OK, it's an inference I draw from the fact that the supposed
protective effect is large when scratched ears are counted as head
injuries, and zero when only serious injuries are counted :-)

Ahh I see. Makes sense to me though I'm more inclined to say that
helmets "probably" prevent minor scrapes and bruises. I used to work
for the gov't. 🙂

Thanks

John Kane
Kingston ON Canada