Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:33:57 +0100, Mark McNeill
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>I'm pretty sure Nicholas Breakspear was educated in St Albans,
>which if true is something we have in common. I didn't go to the Pope's
>old school, though I *did* go to a nearby Catholic one!

St. Columba's?

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

 

[[email protected]]

Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> Holy smokes! Remind me not to invite you and Frank to my next backyard
> barbeque. I think you two would have to drink most of my beer before
> you loosened up at all.

If it really was a joke, Jay, here's your problem:

It's very difficult to make a joke by saying something outrageous in
favor of helmets.

Why? Because whatever outrageous pro-helmet statements you make,
someone has already made them in dead seriousness.

That includes the statements in your post.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:22:01 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>>> Only one fly in your ointment, doc: my choice is neither uninformed
>>> nor misinformed -- by /my/ standards. Just because you don't agree
>>> with it /or my reasons for it/ doesn't mean a thing more than that:
>>> we disagree about what constitutes "validity" for certain decisions
>>> or choices.

>> Ah, so it's your *standards* which are wrong, and that is what brings
>> your whole house of cards down. Thanks for clearing that up.

>Total disconnect, but it sounded good and that's all that matters here,
>apparently.

I agree that your statement was a total disconnect - from reality at
least - but disagree that it sounded good.

>> So why wear "special" protective equipment? Most odd.

>Nothing special at all, Governor. Stiff shoes, padded shorts, wicking
>jersey, gloves, sunglasses and a helmet. Off we go!

Exactly. Special protective equipment. Or do you wear the helmet for
walking and driving as well?

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, you know?]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:28:29 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>It's fun arguing with people who don't resort to twisting words and removing
>context. You're no fun, Guy.

I can see how it would be no fun arguing with people who have facts
when you have none. Feel free to read up before you venture an
opinion.

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, you know?]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:00:38 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>If I make a statement of fact, then you have every right to ask for proof to
>back it up. /Opinions/ aren't usually so cut and dried.

You stated as fact that your opinion was as valid as one based on
evidence. It isn't.

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

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:
> > Jay Beattie wrote:
> > >
> > > Holy smokes! Remind me not to invite you and Frank to my next backyard
> > > barbeque. I think you two would have to drink most of my beer before
> > > you loosened up at all. I am starting to feel like that Danish
> > > cartoonist . . . -- Jay Beattie.
> > >
> >
> > Ah so when you started a paragraph with "The problem I have with the
> > population studies is....." it was a joke. Or is that just your way out
> > of the fact that you had clearly not thought through what you wrote and
> > it was clearly nonsense as was pointed out?
>
> You think I'm serious about helmeted riders knocking un-helmeted riders
> off their bikes and increasing the HI rate? So much for dead-pan.
> Maybe I need a laugh track.-- Jay Beattie.

Jay, you have consistently written serious attempts to
undermine the hypothesis that in general bicycle helmets
do not benefit the population of bicyclists. Now you
expect a similar message to be taken as humor, with no
transition. I found it risible, though not through intent
to amuse. Taken as humor, yes it is a funny image.

--
Michael Press

 

[[email protected]]

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>
>
> My understanding of the research I've read includes the following:
>
> - In population studies, increased helmet use produces either no
> significant decrease in injury rates or an increase in injury rates.
> - Helmets do not reduce the damage from high impact head contacts that
> are forseeable in crashes at normal cycling speeds.
>
> Some of the questions I would like to see answered, but which haven't
> been in what I've read, includes:
> - what proportion of head injuries to helmeted cyclists occur to people
> wearing incorrectly fitted and/or worn helmets?
> - what proportion of head injuries to helmeted cyclists can be
> attributed to risk compensation?
> - what is the demographic breakout of head injuries to helmeted and
> unhelmeted cyclists by age and exposure, and by severity of head injury?
> - what are the risk and demographic breakdown (incidents per mile or
> hour) of the types of injuries helmets may provide protection for (e.g.
> lacerations, cuts, etc.) between helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists?
> - what are the risk and demographic breakdown (e.g. incidents per mile
> or hour) of the types of injuries helmets are unlikely to provide
> protection for (e.g. brain injuries) between helmeted and non-helmeted
> cyclists?
> - what are the benefits or disbenefits of helmets in off-road cycling?
>
> That's a start.

ISTM you're leaving out a fundamental question. I'm not sure whether
you'd claim it's in your first or your second category, but, why not
ask:

Is cycling dangerous enough that we even need to ask all the other
questions?

Data I've found indicate that cycling is nothing special regarding
production of brain injuries. It's safety level is fine, whether or
not a person wears a styrofoam cap. See
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm

If bicycling is already sufficiently safe, the helmet questions are
moot.

Now, if a person decided that despite favorable comparisons, they
wanted to make cycling even safer, another fundamental question arises:


Is wearing of helmets the best way to make cycling safer?

When one examines the causes of crashes that generate cycling's serious
injuries, ISTM that there are more effective measures that should be
attacked first. This also makes all your helmet questions moot points.

Finally, through it all, we should remember that, danger or no, cycling
is definitely beneficial on the balance. That is, years of life gained
through cycling have been computed (by Mayer Hillman, an eminent
British policy researcher) to outnumber years of life lost by a 20 to 1
ratio.

This means that any effort to make cycling safer must NOT decrease
cycling. It would take only a small decrease in cycling to do more
societal harm than good.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> You think I'm serious about helmeted riders knocking un-helmeted riders
> off their bikes and increasing the HI rate?

That part was obviously an attempt at a joke. That's why I trimmed it
in my reply.

All the rest was nonsense that has been stated seriously, many times
over.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> >
> > Holy smokes! Remind me not to invite you and Frank to my next backyard
> > barbeque. I think you two would have to drink most of my beer before
> > you loosened up at all.
>
> If it really was a joke, Jay, here's your problem:
>
> It's very difficult to make a joke by saying something outrageous in
> favor of helmets.
>
> Why? Because whatever outrageous pro-helmet statements you make,
> someone has already made them in dead seriousness.
>
> That includes the statements in your post.
>

Why, then did *you* snip out the middle of Jay's post, the part that
made it quite clear that he was joking, before crafting your
long-winded reply?

 

[Tony Raven]

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>>> says...
>>>> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
>>>>> And I know the research shows cyclists have a
>>>>> lower risk of serious head injury across the population when helmets are
>>>>> mandated, and I don't take issue with that either.
>>>>>
>>>> You know wrong then.
>>> Jeez, I did type that, didn't I. Sorry, I meant to say I know cyclists
>>> have a HIGHER risk of serious head injury across the population when
>>> helmets are mandated. My mistake.
>>>
>>> So tell us -- why won't you answer the BMI question?
>>>
>>> Rick
>> I did but you snipped the answer.
>
> Sorry about that. I don't snip to hide anything -- I truthfully didn't
> think you answered the question.
>
> I've pasted in the question and your answer below. Perhaps you can
> clarify your answer.
>
> The question was:
> =====================
> What would you have done back then [when published studies first showed
> high BMI was correlated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease]
> if your BMI was in the higher risk category despite your being
> a world class competitive athlete?
> ================
>
>
> You answered:
> ====================
> However when my BMI was above average I worked to reduce it when that
> was thought to be a problem.
> ====================
>
> So let's confirm what you mean.
>
> Do you mean that you worked to reduce your muscle mass to get your BMI
> within the recommended range?
>

BMI is not about muscle mass, its about body weight and height although
it is well known that muscle is more dense than fat. And its always
been a simple rule of thumb, developed in the first half of the 19th
century, with know limitations and aimed at normal people
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Quetelet). But yes when my BMI
went above 25 I worked to lose weight to get it down - but then I knew I
was a bit overweight anyway without calculating my BMI.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> >
> > You think I'm serious about helmeted riders knocking un-helmeted riders
> > off their bikes and increasing the HI rate?
>
> That part was obviously an attempt at a joke. That's why I trimmed it
> in my reply.
>

This level of ******** is something new, even from you.


> All the rest was nonsense that has been stated seriously, many times
> over.
>

But, Jay was clearly not being serious, so why bother to deceptively
snip the post to make it *appear* to be serious and then tell Jay how
mis-guided he was?

You deceptive gasbag!

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Espressopithecus (Java Man)
<[email protected]> wrote:

> What would you have done if you were a lean, muscular athlete with a BMI
> in the elevated risk group?

If I were a lean muscular athlete I would do what I have
always done: pedal to the medal and devil take the
hindmost.

On the other hand if I were a thinking man I would
consider the literature on BMI and conclude that it is
number that attempts (somewhat successfully) to measure
the fraction of body fat in an individual the researcher
has never seen; nor seen a medical history for said
individual. Then I would have my body fat measured and
other diagnostic procedures.

Note that abdominal fat is more of a health risk
(statistically) than fat elsewhere on the frame.

--
Michael Press

 

[Tony Raven]

Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> You think I'm serious about helmeted riders knocking un-helmeted riders
> off their bikes and increasing the HI rate? So much for dead-pan.
> Maybe I need a laugh track.-- Jay Beattie.
>

We've seen sillier from the PHZs. In fact someone here has already made
your first point once before.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[[email protected]]

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> >
> > And bike
> > helmets don't reduce the tiny risks anyway. So bike helmets are an
> > ineffective solution to a nonexistent problem.
> >
> I think that's a good summary of the issue, but I would like to know
> more since I suspect it's not universally true for all groups and all
> types of cycling.


> What's your take on this speculation? Do you see any of these
> differently?
> If the data was ever available -- and I agree with you that it's big
> "IF" given budget required to do the very detailed research that would
> be needed -- I suspect we would learn that:
>
> - Risk compensation is probably the largest single factor in the
> increases in head injuries seen in the population studies;

I think that's possible, but I'd suspect another factor as being just
as important. That is, the "safety in numbers" effect. See
http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/short/9/3/205

> - Wearing helmets that don't fit, or wearing them incorrectly, makes
> them more hazardous, and accounts for some of the increases in head
> injuries in the population studies;

Yes, I think bad fit makes helmets somewhat less protective, although
this, like anything else, is not binary. Typical bad fit makes them
only a little less protective. (I do, however, have a photo of a woman
I passed who was dutifully wearing her bike helmet at the _top_ of a
big straw hat with a 10" crown!)

> - Even properly fitted helmets increase the risk of injury in high
> impact crashes for all groups and in all cycling activities in which
> high impact crashes can occur -- cyclists whose patterns increase the
> risk of high impact crashes would be better off without helmets;

I suppose this is pretty accurate. I'm not sure how well anyone can
define "cyclists at risk of high impact crashes", though.

> - Properly fitted helmets reduce the risk of minor injuries in low
> impact crashes;

Probably so.

> - A cyclist who understands the risks of wearing a helmet (e.g. knows
> they don't help and may actually hurt in high impact crashes) either
> doesn't risk compensates, or compensates to REDUCE risk by riding in
> ways to reduce the risk of high impact crashes.

I'm not sure we can say this. ISTM that the vast, vast majority of
cyclists who would believe what you've written would just ditch the
helmet. There wouldn't be enough of a sample left to prove or disprove
your statement!

> - Helmet use by off-road cyclists follows the same patterns as for road
> cyclists -- the risk depends on the extent to which the rider engages in
> activities that increase the likelihood of high impact crashes. Off-road
> cyclists whose activities increase the likelihood of high impact crashes
> would be better off without helmets.

I'm having trouble visualizing the population you're talking about.
Frankly, I can't get over the feeling that anyone engaging in mountain
biking radical enough to generate "high impact crashes" is probably so
insanely gonzo that we can't predict their behavior, or it's
consequences. I'm reminded of the video I recently saw where a guy was
trying to set a downhill speed record and crashed.

> In case I need to repeat this, all of the above is speculation, and I
> don't know of any studies that back it up.

Understood.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Jay Beattie wrote:
> > >
> > > You think I'm serious about helmeted riders knocking un-helmeted riders
> > > off their bikes and increasing the HI rate?
> >
> > That part was obviously an attempt at a joke. That's why I trimmed it
> > in my reply.
> >
>
> This level of ******** is something new, even from you.
>

Just to let you know, Ozark, I actually _would_ reply to you if you
ever said anything worthwhile.

Carry on.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Tony Raven]

[email protected] wrote:
> I'm reminded of the video I recently saw where a guy was
> trying to set a downhill speed record and crashed.
>

And if you remember Eric Barone crashed at 100mph by going over the
bars, his helmet came off right at the start of the accident and he
still walked away from it. There are many here would tell you that in
accidents far less severe than that a helmet saved the person's life
and yet here is someone easily surviving a far worse crash without his
helmet.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Burt]

"Espressopithecus (Java Man)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Some of the questions I would like to see answered, but which haven't
> been in what I've read, includes:
> - what proportion of head injuries to helmeted cyclists occur to people
> wearing incorrectly fitted and/or worn helmets?
> - what proportion of head injuries to helmeted cyclists can be
> attributed to risk compensation?
> - what is the demographic breakout of head injuries to helmeted and
> unhelmeted cyclists by age and exposure, and by severity of head injury?
> - what are the risk and demographic breakdown (incidents per mile or
> hour) of the types of injuries helmets may provide protection for (e.g.
> lacerations, cuts, etc.) between helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists?
> - what are the risk and demographic breakdown (e.g. incidents per mile
> or hour) of the types of injuries helmets are unlikely to provide
> protection for (e.g. brain injuries) between helmeted and non-helmeted
> cyclists?
> - what are the benefits or disbenefits of helmets in off-road cycling?
>
> That's a start.
>
A very interesting set of questions, and no doubt the answers would be just
as interesting. But all completely irrelevant. The only relevant question
is "is there any correlation between helmet wearing rates and deaths and
injuries to cyclists?" and the answer to that is "no". The reasons why
helmets do not make cycling safer is irrelevant. The fact that they do no
make cycling safer is.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > Jay Beattie wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You think I'm serious about helmeted riders knocking un-helmeted riders
> > > > off their bikes and increasing the HI rate?
> > >
> > > That part was obviously an attempt at a joke. That's why I trimmed it
> > > in my reply.
> > >
> >
> > This level of ******** is something new, even from you.
> >
>
> Just to let you know, Ozark, I actually _would_ reply to you if you
> ever said anything worthwhile.
>

Not looking for a reply from you, Windy. Just pointing out, for the
record, what a deceptive, puffed up, self-important, pompous gasbag you
are.


> Carry on.
>

Keep up that snipping with the intent to deceive, Windy.


> - Frank Krygowski, Certified Usenet Sleazebag

 

[Tony Raven]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Not looking for a reply from you, Windy. Just pointing out, for the
> record, what a deceptive, puffed up, self-important, pompous gasbag you
> are.
>

Most people gave up name calling at grade school but not our Malesweski.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Just zis Guy, you know?:
> I didn't go to the Pope's
> >old school, though I *did* go to a nearby Catholic one!
>
> St. Columba's?

That's right - well, the junior school. Why my father, a Belfast
Presbyterian, should have sent me there is one of those things I never
asked him when I had the chance. I'm fairly remotely related to St.
Columba, via Niall of the Nine Hostages [allegedly]; maybe it was that.


The only other thing I remember about St Albans, apart from the school
and the Abbey, is Paton Books, which was my favourite shop.


--
Mark, UK
"I've noticed that the press tends to be quite accurate, except when
they're writing on a subject I know something about."