Paramount

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark Shroyer said:

Quoted message said:

If helmets do indeed reduce serious injury, then we should expect
to see a reduction in the rate of serious injuries (presumably head
injuries) when mandatory helmet laws cause helmet use to rise from
less than 50% to nearly 100%.

I'm not interested in studies on the statistical effectiveness of
helmet laws at reducing head injuries across a political
jurisdiction. That introduces a whole additional set of
unpredictable variables and in any event fails to directly answer the
only question I'm interested in...

You're missing the significance of whole population (epidemiological)
studies.

Quoted message said:

...which question is whether a properly worn helmet will reduce my
chances of sustaining a head injury, or the severity of that injury,
should I eat asphalt.

Now you've introduced a new variable: properly worn helmets. You're
starting to hedge. You also might want to check into the testing
standards used for approving helmets, if you haven't already, to see
what your helmet is actually designed to protect against. Just Google
the Snell or ANSI standards listed on the sticker inside your helmet.

Quoted message said:

Studies of hospital admissions of bicycle accident victims controlled
for helmet usage suggest that the voluntary use of helmets does
provide considerable protection against brain injury.

What studies are these? I have, over the past 10-15 years, heard much
reference to this but have never seen an actual peer-reviewed critical
literature study. When looked into, what we tend to find is that these
"studies" are off-the-cuff estimates by ER staff that are lacking in
scientific rigor or factual foundation. If you know of actual studies
based on scientific method that show that helmets provide "considerable"
protection (whatever that means), then please by all means point us to
them.

Quoted message said:

I suspect your response to this may be "but such studies don't
isolate potential confounding factors", and you would be right
(although if you're genuinely worried about confounding factors in
*these* studies, it would make me question why you suggested I look
at studies on the safety effectiveness of helmet laws of all things);
but short of lining random people up with and without helmets and
knocking them off bicycles in a controlled environment, that's about
the most conclusive kind of data we're going to get.

But we can draw some conclusions from population studies. If, for
example, helmets reduce head injuries by 85% (a commonly cited figure),
then in places that have passed mandatory helmet laws there should be an
85% reduction in cycling-related brain injuries. If we do not see such
reductions, then we can conclude that the 85% figure is inaccurate.

Quoted message said:

Given what evidence we do have -- and given that tests show that, all
other factors being equal, a helmet can significantly reduce the
impulse delivered to one's head in the event of a fall --

Again, what tests are these? Please point us to them.

Quoted message said:

I will continue to feel confident in my choice to use a bicycle
helmet, until such a time as equally conclusive evidence emerges
showing an overwhelming /negative/ effect of helmet use.

We don't have to see an "overwhelming negative effect," just a lack of a
positive effect.

Quoted message said:

And I'll respect everyone else's decision to wear or to not wear a
helmet, as he or she individually chooses.

As does everyone else in this thread. I don't care whether you wear a
helmet or not. But I don't want people making the choice based on false
information.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark Shroyer said:

Again, as pointed out in the parent article, studies designed to
measure this specific effect have shown, albeit not entirely
conclusively, that voluntary helmet usage significantly decreases the
risk of brain injury in accident victim cyclists, all other things
being equal.

And what studies are these? Where are they published? Can you point us
to them?

Mark Shroyer said:

You're right, it might not save me from serious injury. But the
ability of a helmet's styrofoam padding to reduce the impulse
delivered to my head could very well could turn a serious injury
into a minor one, or a minor injury into something I can get up
and brush myself off from. And that's good enough reason for
me.

First, let me say that your own reasons are fine for yourself.
Personal clothing should be up to the person. If you wear a helmet
merely because you think a styrofoam helmet looks devilishly stylish,
or that it will protect your hair from cosmic rays, that's fine.

But understand that when you post your reasons or rationalizations
here, you open them up to public scrutiny.

So: Don't the words "could very well" seem vague and overly
optimistic to you?

Consider learning whether the injury reductions you hope for are
really likely. I think if you examine the best data, you'll conclude
that "could very well" is hopelessly optimistic.

Problem is, most people never examine the data. They never get any
further than the helmeteers' promise that "helmets prevent up to 85%
of head injuries" or other such nonsense. Why? Because conflicting
data gets no publicity! You can't make money by telling people a high-
profit skullcap doesn't work.

Visit www.cyclehelmets.org and read some science. Oh, and think about
the flow of money, and its effect on the flow of information.

- Frank Krygowski

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark Shroyer said:

As for why I often wear a helmet while cycling, but never do when I
walk: the odds of me being hit by a car or knocked to the pavement
while in pedestrian mode are much smaller than the chances that the
same thing could happen when I'm riding my bicycle on the shoulder of
the road.

According to the Minnesota Department of Health, there are far more
brain injuries suffered by pedestrians than by cyclists. There is a
perception that cyclists are more vulnerable, but that perception is not
necessarily true.

The argument in favor of helmets is basically a stack of hypotheticals
strung together leading to a non-demonstrated conclusion. The real
outcome of this is that bicycling is seen as a dangerous activity and
participation in our sport suffers as a result.

Quoted message said:

On Jul 4, 11:48 am, "David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

head impacts wearing said foam hats. Bicycle helmets are designed to
protect rider's head's in low-speed falls, nothing more.

Yeah. Works for that, though. Won't help if you head-on into a Mack
truck, despite the claim of "saving lives".

--

David L. Johnson

The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand mathematics.

I don't give a hoot if people wear helmets or not. However, I was in
two bike accidents in which I hit the helmet, and the helmets cracked
both times and my head was left intact. In one occasion, my head hit a
car and the helmet cracked in half. I passed out and woke up 4 hours
later in the emergency room. I got a replacement helmet and a
certificate that read "saved by the bell".

The other occasion, my helmet hit the ground and I felt it bouncing up
and down before sliding on the pavement. On that occasion, my helmet
saved skin too and it cracked.

I have no way of knowing the extent of my injuries had I not been
wearing a helmet. I know that there would have been direct impact w/
my head and at least, more serious injury could have happened. I
believe that the injuries would have been likely very serious. so, I
wear a helmet pretty much all the time.

OTOH, my brother who is not a cyclist came to visit me this week. On
7/04, we went out for a ride and he asked if he could wear my helmet.
I let him use it and rode w/o a helmet. I have very short hair and
ended up burning my head under El Paso's 100 degree heat and sun.

I am one of those that ,while not fanatic about people wearing
helmets, believe that helmets can save people from much more serious
injury. This is only from personal experience.

HOW DARE YOU?!??!?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Warner said:

Mark Shroyer said:

I don't understand the vehemence of the anti-helmet fanatics in
this thread. Nobody (at least nobody here) is telling you that you
should wear a helmet if you don't want to; likewise, if the rest of
us prefer having some degree of protection, however minimal,
between our heads and the road, then you really shouldn't take it
personally.

The argument for taking it personally seems to be that anyone who
sees a cyclist wearing a helmet will conclude that cycling is
dangerous, and therefore stop or never start cycling. As a result,
the automotive hegemony on the road will be complete, and the bicycle
industry will collapse.

No, the argument for taking it personally is people yelling at me "Hey!
Where's your helmet?" on rides that I don't wear one. Many people
already seem to think that it's a law.

In my case, wearing a helmet is a balance between the slight possibility
that it might protect me in the remote chance that I crash, and the
certainty that the weight of the helmet will cause me neck and shoulder
pain.

Michael Warner said:

Quoted message said:

In Australia (as in the US) your public health system spends FAR more
to treat and rehabilitate people who wouldn't need treatment if they
cycled more.

True, but irrelevant. They also wouldn't need as much treatment if they
walked around the block every day.

Not irrelevant at all! Sure, walking can provide exercise and health
benefits. But cycling is a much more effective replacement for
motoring. Bikes outstrip walking regarding distances, speeds and
cargo capacity. So each utility bike ride not only gives the positive
health benefits, but it also removes the negative health and
environmental effects of a car trip. Utility walking is far more
limited, and walking around the block does even less.

Furthermore, although MHL defenders have used your rationale - "Oh,
those who quit cycling might get other exercise" - I've never seen one
bit of evidence that the level of the public's exercise did _not_ drop
when cycling was discouraged by MHLs. All I've seen is handwaving,
trying to excuse a 30+% drop in cycling and a disastrous law.

If you've got evidence that walking or other exercise completely
replaced the sharp drop in cycling after Australia's MHLs, let's see
it.

- Frank Krygowski

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

The AHZs (anti-helmet zealots) refuse to listen to reason.

As do the HZs. That's what makes these threads so entertaining.

In article <[email hidden]>,

landotter said:

Americans, for the most part, ride like [censored]. Not Bernard Hinault
[censored]--that would be pretty baddass, but like Gomer Fife [censored].

That's frickin' hi-larious! (Although did you mean "Barney Fife" or
"Gomer Pyle?"😉

Mark Shroyer said:

I don't understand the vehemence of the anti-helmet fanatics in
this thread. Nobody (at least nobody here) is telling you that
you should wear a helmet if you don't want to; likewise, if the
rest of us prefer having some degree of protection, however
minimal, between our heads and the road, then you really
shouldn't take it personally.

Maybe you are new to the group, but the reaction is fairly predictable
on any thread where helmets get worked into the discussion.

In article <[email hidden]>,

landotter said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

landotter said:

On Jul 5, 12:30 pm, Fred Clydesdale <[email hidden]> wrote:
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> > On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:26:17 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

> > >I've "used" 3 helmets- and certainly if I wasn't wearing one
> > >"I" would not be here now.

Quoted message said:

> > I don't know the circumstance of your accidents, but in every
> > case I've heard where someone said something like that it's
> > turned out that they are very mistaken and irrational about
> > helmet use.

Quoted message said:

> > It's amazing that you have three times you had accidents that
> > were severe enough to have been deadly and yet were not so
> > severe as to overwhelm those small pieces of foam or break
> > your neck or other body parts in crippling or deadly ways.
> > Or perhaps you are crippled or severely injured in other
> > ways?

Quoted message said:

> wasn't there a paramount in here just a second ago?

Quoted message said:

Theft on Usenet is worse than NYC.

Quoted message said:

back to the subject at hand: Anyone commuting without a chain
mail vest is a thorax hater!!!!

Mine's mithril. Lighter and breathes better than iron or steel.

Dork.

Congratulations, you almost got the message.

RonSonic said:

Mark Shroyer said:

Quoted message said:

If helmets do indeed reduce serious injury, then we should expect to
see a reduction in the rate of serious injuries (presumably head
injuries) when mandatory helmet laws cause helmet use to rise from
less than 50% to nearly 100%.

I'm not interested in studies on the statistical effectiveness
of helmet laws at reducing head injuries across a political
jurisdiction. That introduces a whole additional set of
unpredictable variables and in any event fails to directly
answer the only question I'm interested in...

...which question is whether a properly worn helmet will reduce
my chances of sustaining a head injury, or the severity of that
injury, should I eat asphalt. Studies of hospital admissions of
bicycle accident victims controlled for helmet usage suggest
that the voluntary use of helmets does provide considerable
protection against brain injury.

No, it proves that helmet-wearers are a bunch of sissies who go get
medical attention (or whose mom takes them to the ER) for minor
scrapes and bruises while non-helmet types only go to emergency rooms
when someone else has to carry them.

Quoted message said:

I suspect your response to
this may be "but such studies don't isolate potential
confounding factors", and you would be right (although if you're
genuinely worried about confounding factors in *these* studies,
it would make me question why you suggested I look at studies on
the safety effectiveness of helmet laws of all things); but
short of lining random people up with and without helmets and
knocking them off bicycles in a controlled environment, that's
about the most conclusive kind of data we're going to get.

Given what evidence we do have -- and given that tests show
that, all other factors being equal, a helmet can significantly
reduce the impulse delivered to one's head in the event of a
fall -- I will continue to feel confident in my choice to use a
bicycle helmet, until such a time as equally conclusive evidence
emerges showing an overwhelming /negative/ effect of helmet use.
And I'll respect everyone else's decision to wear or to not wear
a helmet, as he or she individually chooses.

That's good. Most helmet advocates are completely irrational on that
point.

Proof? In the Usenet discussions I've read, virtually all helmet advocates
said words to the effect of, "do what you choose" (and allow me to do t he
same). Conversely, the true AHZs were irrationally (emotionally) animated
re. the subject. (Note: injecting arguments about MHLs is a strawman
technique unless the pro-lid person actually is in favor of them; can't
recall even ONE being so.)

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

catzz66 said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

Why not wear a diaper all the time so you never have to go to a
'loo??

It worked (for a while, anyhow) for Lisa Marie Nowak.

Now her lawyers state she didn't wear a diaper. Like that makes the
whole thing so much more normal.

It "Depends" on a person's version of normal, I suppose.

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark Shroyer said:

Quoted message said:

If helmets do indeed reduce serious injury, then we should expect
to see a reduction in the rate of serious injuries (presumably head
injuries) when mandatory helmet laws cause helmet use to rise from
less than 50% to nearly 100%.

I'm not interested in studies on the statistical effectiveness of
helmet laws at reducing head injuries across a political
jurisdiction. That introduces a whole additional set of
unpredictable variables and in any event fails to directly answer the
only question I'm interested in...

You're missing the significance of whole population (epidemiological)
studies.

Which include kids, wrong-wayers, DUI riders, etc. NO significance to road
cyclists.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...which question is whether a properly worn helmet will reduce my
chances of sustaining a head injury, or the severity of that injury,
should I eat asphalt.

Now you've introduced a new variable: properly worn helmets. You're
starting to hedge.

A proper study of seat belt effectiveness wouldn't include incidents where
the buckle wasn't engaged. A study of seat belt /use/ might, but that's a
different subject.

Quoted message said:

You also might want to check into the testing
standards used for approving helmets, if you haven't already, to see
what your helmet is actually designed to protect against. Just Google
the Snell or ANSI standards listed on the sticker inside your helmet.

Quoted message said:

Studies of hospital admissions of bicycle accident victims controlled
for helmet usage suggest that the voluntary use of helmets does
provide considerable protection against brain injury.

What studies are these? I have, over the past 10-15 years, heard much
reference to this but have never seen an actual peer-reviewed critical
literature study. When looked into, what we tend to find is that
these "studies" are off-the-cuff estimates by ER staff that are
lacking in scientific rigor or factual foundation. If you know of
actual studies based on scientific method that show that helmets
provide "considerable" protection (whatever that means), then please
by all means point us to them.

Quoted message said:

I suspect your response to this may be "but such studies don't
isolate potential confounding factors", and you would be right
(although if you're genuinely worried about confounding factors in
*these* studies, it would make me question why you suggested I look
at studies on the safety effectiveness of helmet laws of all things);
but short of lining random people up with and without helmets and
knocking them off bicycles in a controlled environment, that's about
the most conclusive kind of data we're going to get.

But we can draw some conclusions from population studies. If, for
example, helmets reduce head injuries by 85% (a commonly cited
figure), then in places that have passed mandatory helmet laws there
should be an 85% reduction in cycling-related brain injuries. If we
do not see such reductions, then we can conclude that the 85% figure
is inaccurate.

Quoted message said:

Given what evidence we do have -- and given that tests show that, all
other factors being equal, a helmet can significantly reduce the
impulse delivered to one's head in the event of a fall --

Again, what tests are these? Please point us to them.

Quoted message said:

I will continue to feel confident in my choice to use a bicycle
helmet, until such a time as equally conclusive evidence emerges
showing an overwhelming /negative/ effect of helmet use.

We don't have to see an "overwhelming negative effect," just a lack
of a positive effect.

Quoted message said:

And I'll respect everyone else's decision to wear or to not wear a
helmet, as he or she individually chooses.

As does everyone else in this thread. I don't care whether you wear a
helmet or not. But I don't want people making the choice based on
false information.

Nanny.

[email hidden] trolled:

Quoted message said:

Oh, and feel free to look up the number of pedestrian fatalities in
the US each year, and compare them to the number of bike fatalities.

Suddenly Frank /doesn't/ consider total population factors. LOL

Tim McNamara said:

According to the Minnesota Department of Health, there are far more
brain injuries suffered by pedestrians than by cyclists.

How many more peds are there than pedalers? 15? 37? 140? 1000?

catzz66 said:

Mark Shroyer said:

I don't understand the vehemence of the anti-helmet fanatics in
this thread. Nobody (at least nobody here) is telling you that
you should wear a helmet if you don't want to; likewise, if the
rest of us prefer having some degree of protection, however
minimal, between our heads and the road, then you really
shouldn't take it personally.

Maybe you are new to the group, but the reaction is fairly predictable
on any thread where helmets get worked into the discussion.

Fairly? :-D

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

landotter said:

Americans, for the most part, ride like [censored]. Not Bernard Hinault
[censored]--that would be pretty baddass, but like Gomer Fife [censored].

That's frickin' hi-larious! (Although did you mean "Barney Fife" or
"Gomer Pyle?"😉

It's a savory amalgam. ;-)

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark Shroyer said:

Studies of hospital admissions of bicycle accident victims controlled
for helmet usage suggest that the voluntary use of helmets does
provide considerable protection against brain injury.

What studies are these? I have, over the past 10-15 years, heard much
reference to this but have never seen an actual peer-reviewed critical
literature study. When looked into, what we tend to find is that these
"studies" are off-the-cuff estimates by ER staff that are lacking in
scientific rigor or factual foundation. If you know of actual studies
based on scientific method that show that helmets provide "considerable"
protection (whatever that means), then please by all means point us to
them.

Actually, it's not hard to find studies that claim benefits for
helmets, based on ER observations.

Here's the general picture: There are two major types of studies that
have examined helmet effects. One type is the "case-control" study,
which essentially counts the folks with head injuries from the group
wearing helmets and compare with folks not wearing helmets. The other
type is the "time series," which is best done where a population
suddenly straps on helmets en masse - that is, most often, when a MHL
has been passed and enforced.

Case-control studies usually show some fairly strong benefit for
helmets. Time series studies always, AFAIK, show no benefit, or even
a detriment for helmet.

Why? Take the most notorious case-control study, the 1989 one that
produced the ludicrous "85%" figure: The folks in helmets (mostly
kids) were overwhelmingly white, middle class, good insurance
coverage, riding on bike paths with their parents, falling on softer
surfaces, etc. The kids without helmets were much more likely to be
minority, low-income, riding alone on streets, falling on hard
surfaces and having some involvement with a car. But the authors'
conclusions were that the helmets were what made the difference.

There's more. The authors deliberately listed cut ears, scraped
chins, etc. as "head injuries" (note, there is no legal definition of
that term), probably knowing that it would be misinterpreted as "brain
injury" by every do-gooder who ever cited the report.

There's even more. www.cyclehelmets.org has a detailed scientific
criticism. But in a nutshell, case-control studies are fatally flawed
by self-selection - the fact that the "case" and "control" groups are
likely very different. The parents who got so scared of brain injury
that they strapped bike helmets on their kids in 1989 were the ones
who were so afraid that they took Johnny to the ER when he fell on the
bike path. After all, their insurance covered it. And of course,
Johnny was fine - and would have been with just a baseball cap! OTOH,
little LaShawn or Diego's mom has no insurance, and only takes her kid
to the ER if she can't stop the bleeding in an hour. If she _does_ go
to ER, it's because it _is_ a scary injury.

Again, there's more. See www.cyclehelmets.org

Time series studies have shown completely opposite effects of
helmets. The most famous, examining the effects of Australia's and
later, New Zealand's all-ages MHLs, found that the drop in head
injuries was undetectable, or that the drop in cycling exceeded the
drop in head injuries. That is, the head injury rate per remaining
cyclist actually rose!

Which type of study is more robust? Consider that the usual
conclusion of a pro-helmet case-control study is something like "If
only helmets were worn by all cyclists, we conclude head injuries
would be reduced by xxxx per year." But the time series studies
measure what _actually_ happens. It's like the difference between a
pre-election poll and the actual vote count. Only one really matters.

- Frank Krygowski

Bill Sornson said:

[email hidden] trolled:

Quoted message said:

Oh, and feel free to look up the number of pedestrian fatalities in
the US each year, and compare them to the number of bike fatalities.

Suddenly Frank /doesn't/ consider total population factors. LOL

I'm taking this step by step, Bill. And in any case, I provided per-
hour figures, which you seem to have somehow missed.

Perhaps there is somebody in your neighborhood who can explain the
term "Per hour" to you. Ask around.

- Frank Krygowski