Re: Helmets

Tue, 31 May 2005 11:40:54 +0100,
<[email hidden]>,

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

AFAIK, the courts have been known to reduce monetary awards by
claiming that the injured party contributed to their own injuries by
not using the required or recommended safety equipment, or by breaking
the law.

This is true - it's called "contributory negligence" - but I have not
seen any evidence that it has ever happened in the case of cycle
helmets, and it would be perverse if it did since the majority of
serious and fatal cyclist head injuries are the result of impacts well
beyond the design parameters of cycle helmets.

A quick scan of the search results showed that the states of New York
and Georgia both have bicycle helmet laws which specifically prohibit
invoking "contributory negligence". But, many times cases are not
taken to court so insurance companies just steal from you by citing
"contributory negligence" when offering a settlement.
--
zk

Karl Henderson said:

Quoted message said:

On a recent ride, one of the riders drifted off edge of sidewalk at
about 10 to 15 mph in area where there was no bike lane on road. He had
slight concussion with helmet - would have been far worse without one.
ALWAYS wear properly fitted helmet in good condition.

In a recent day driving, an innocent motorist's car was struck in the
driver's door by a driver that had run a stop sign. The innocent
motorist's head impacted the driver's door frame, despite the seat belt
and air bag. He died of a head injury. This happens many thousands of
times per year. In fact, riding in cars is the number one source of
fatal head injuries, causing roughly 50% of such fatalities in the US.

In a recent walk, an innocent pedestrian was struck down by a car whose
driver had turned quickly into the crosswalk. As with most accidental
deaths, the cause of death was a head injury. This happens to
pedestrians thousands of times per year.

Perhaps 15,000 times last year, innocent people fell in or around their
own home and died of head injury. Some tripped on carpets or other
obstruction. Some slipped going down stairs. Some fell off ladders,
etc. Some fell in the shower. But overall, this is the second biggest
cause of head injury fatalities in the US, second only to riding in
cars.

So yes, ALWAYS wear a properly fitted helmet in good condition! Not
just on a bike: ALWAYS!

Are you wearing yours NOW? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

31 May 2005 11:37:53 -0700,
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

So yes, ALWAYS wear a properly fitted helmet in good condition! Not
just on a bike: ALWAYS!

There are roughly 160 concussions in the NFL every year and 70
concussions in the NHL (except last year) even though they _were_
wearing helmets at the time.

I wonder how many concussions there are in a year on the professional
racing circuit.
--
zk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1.) I do not advocate mandatory helmet use. I don't shake my head and
"tsk-tsk" when I see a helmet less rider.

In effect, that's exactly what you did here. Perhaps we should take
today's statement as a retraction?

There's nothing to retract, my position has remained the same, your
creative interpretation, on the other hand, has been very fluid.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2.) I understand why such use is in place in certain areas. State parks,
for example, need the language to protect themselves from lawsuits >>resulting from injury sustained while using their facility. That includes in-line
skating as well.

Quoted message said:

I don't understand that. First, helmets are not significantly
protective against anything but the most minor scratches & bumps.
Second, the vast majority of parks, etc have NO helmet requirements,
and suffer no bad consequences.

I regularly ride two connected parks. One is state run and one is part
of a chain of Metro-Parks. The state park, which posts and enforces
the helmet law, is much more congested and as a result has had several
serious injuries involving cyclists and in-line skaters. (Sorry, no
info on walking related injuries).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3.) Cycling is dangerous. Danger is relative, not absolute. Driving and
diving and working in an all-night convenience store are dangerous too. We
require training and some safety equipment for the first two, the last one,
well; you're on your own.

Quoted message said:

When someone says "Driving is dangerous; walking is dangerous" they are
making up their own useless definition of danger! Like it or not, it
is not normal to be fearful of driving; it is not normal to be fearful
of walking in a busy downtown. The accident rates are low enough that
people accept those activities as adequately "safe." And by the data,
cycling is safer!

Oh come on, spare me. I don't need to invent a definition of danger
and I'll spare us both the pointlessness of posting one here. I
don't equate danger with fear. Since you're so hung up on the word
"danger" maybe we can substitute the work risk?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, yes, I still maintain that, all things being
equal, cycling is more dangerous than walking.

Quoted message said:

I've produced data. I can give more, if you like. Where's yours?

I don't need reams of data to make a decision on whether or not to
wear a helmet. If the fact that riding a bicycle at speed, around
fast-moving traffic with very little between you and everything else
exposes you to more danger, oops I mean risk, than a walk to the
drugstore isn't apparent to you then no amount of numbers and charts
are going to sway you.

And I don't need data when I have more than enough empirical evidence
to support MY decision to wear a helmet. I have no idea why you are so
infatuated with third-hand data and so determined to convince everyone
that your conclusions are the only correct ones.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Please don't insult either
of us by suggesting that I'm saying a bike ride will kill or maim you.

Quoted message said:

I'll take that as a retraction, too.

Hey, why not you seem to feel free to twist my word to suit your
purposes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

4.) I'm speculating here but it seems to me that a pedestrian related head
injury would have to involve some other circumstances. Impact with an
automobile, icy sidewalk, etc. Unless you're a drunken sot or Jerry Lewis,
the mere act of walking shouldn't be a life-threatening endeavor. SorryI
can't drag out any statistics but I don't trust stats and I don't care to
support any debate with them.

Quoted message said:

Although you apparently don't realize it, your third sentence above
_does_ carry the implication that the mere act of cycling is a
life-threating endeavor! Otherwise, why imply that walking is safe, no
helmet needed there, but bikers need helmets?

There is no implication other than your own. I made no mention of
cycling in that paragraph. I was speaking about walking, not walking
vs. cycling.

Quoted message said:

Oh, and I'm not surprised you have no statistics. People arguing the
way you argue never do have statistics. They usually have no
understanding of statistics. That's part of what makes these threads
so repetitious - explaining basic math.

I understand statistics just fine and I also understand how easily they
can be skewed to support many sides of the same issues and thus
virtually worthless to prove anything. I give them the respect they
deserve.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And I
wonder if the numbers reflect the relatively recent popularity of cycling
that, by it's very nature, exposes the rider to greater risk of injury?
Mountain biking, BMX biking or any of the other "X-treme", Mountain Dew
pseudo-sports almost revel in the possibility of injury. (Chicks dig scars,
doooode!) Are these extra cyclists and conditions factored into the "more
head injuries that ever before despite helmet use" agenda?

Quoted message said:

Interestingly, if someone does get a head injury because of their
extreme biking, you should ask: Would they have done that if they
didn't feel so protected by the helmet?

Good question. My hunch is that it makes no difference. Risk takers
are risk takers by nature. I do know that the trail riders I know wear
helmets because they figure that they are apt to crash and they prefer
to have something between their head and whatever they land on. Basic
human nature I think. . .if someone take a swing at you you'll
probably instinctively shield your head with your hands. The more
deliberate and proactive donning of a helmet, as useless as you claim
it to be, is probably rooted on the same instinct.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Regarding my comment vis-à-vis a helmet less rider's legal options.
I wasn't suggesting that a lack of a helmet would exclude the rider from the
legal system, I was suggesting that a.) if a head injury was the issue and
b.) if the severity of the injury could have been minimized or prevented by
the use of a helmet then c.) the award should be skewed to reflect the
rider's decision to expose himself or herself to that risk.

Quoted message said:

All of which was predicated on the idea that a helmet is tremendously
protective, and that nobody should choose other than to wear one.
Despite your wiggling, you are STILL claiming your way is right,
despite the admitted lack of study on your part, and you're STILL
calling for punishment (or less legal benefit) for someone who doesn't
believe what you believe.

You've got an annoying habit of saying what you think I've said and
then debating those words as if they were mine. Once again, I never
said anyone should wear or not wear a helmet, I never claimed my way
was right (that seems to be your domain) and I'm not calling out for
punishment.

With regards to the legal benefit, here's a non-cycling example based
on, guess what, a statistic:

Believe it or not there are still some who'll cite studies to argue
that cigarette smoking is not a health threat. Well, that's [censored]
but hey, smoking is legal so knock yourself out. But if and when you
develop repertory complications as a result of your decision to smoke,
I don't think you're entitled to sue the tobacco companies.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

7.) Finally, someone mentioned how helmet use is poo-poo'd among >>European
cyclist. I've spent quite a bit of time in Europe including cycling crazy
countries like Holland and Belgium and I've noticed plenty of riders, both
recreational and more serious riders, wearing helmets.

Quoted message said:

"Plenty of riders?" Wonderfully vague! Please, can you estimate the
percentages? I've spent time in Great Britain and Ireland, and I'd
estimate that 90% of the helmet wearers I saw were Americans. In the
areas I traveled, I saw perhaps 1% of the natives in helmets, if that.

Sorry, I don't travel 3000+ miles to do a head count and collect
data. But being a cyclist I do notice other cyclist and to the best of
my recollection there was no pattern that seemed obvious to me. I saw
commuters with and without helmets and I saw serious cyclists with and
without helmets. Obviously these folks are free to decide for
themselves and I imagine helmet use shows the result of free will.

But I'm curious, since you're so keen to call my comments vague,
how do you support your percentages? Did you count cyclists and record
helmet use? And how could you tell if the riders were American? Maybe
they were Canadian. Were they wearing "I'm An American" buttons?
The last time I was in the UK I didn't notice any physical traits
that would indicate that someone was from England as opposed to the UK.

Talk about vague.

Quoted message said:

Oh, and I happened to spend a couple evenings last week watching travel
videos of Europe. The videos had nothing to do with cycling, except
that there were many, many cyclists in the background scenes. Not one
helmet, though.

We've both been fortunate enough to visit Europe in person so if you
don't mind, I'll pass on using a travelogue to argue helmet use.

Quoted message said:

I got curious about this issue back in the early 1990s. Until then, I
thought about it roughly as much as you, and (consequently) I was
generally in favor of helmets.
Since I started studying the issue, my mind has changed entirely. It
takes some study to understand the available data, but the data is
clear: Cycling is NOT dangerous enough to require protective
equipment; and helmets are not significantly protective anyway.

I've been riding off and on since the 1970's and I really don't
remember what prompted me to start wearing a helmet. To me it's not
a topic that required the exhaustive research you've apparently
invested. I'm very content making my decision based on my
experiences and what I feel is common sense. I'm also quite content
to let others do as they please. There is a difference between
right/wrong and agree/disagree so while I may disagree with someone's
decision to ride without a helmet (or, more accurately, I disagree with
the logic used to come to that decision) I don't think that they are
wrong and I hope that neither one of us has the occasion to prove the
other wrong.

I disagree with you Frank but I've enjoyed reading your comments.

On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:28:01 -0700, Zoot Katz <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Can we append a "Helmets 101" to the FAQ and just point people to it?

A faq update has merit. Mind you, it should be unnecessary -
according to Randy Swart there are no more helmet wars ;-)

For the uk equivalent (uk.rec.cycling) I prepared the following:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmets

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

Opps: The last time I was in the UK I didn't notice any physical
traits
that would indicate that someone was from England as opposed to the UK.

Should have read "as opposed to the US."

On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:05:40 -0700, Zoot Katz <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

There are roughly 160 concussions in the NFL every year and 70
concussions in the NHL (except last year) even though they _were_
wearing helmets at the time.

No, no, Zoot, you're getting it all wrong. You and I know them as
concussions, but in helmetland they are always referred to as scary
BRAIN INJURIES.

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

you know? said:

On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:11:01 -0700, Zoot Katz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

AFAIK, the courts have been known to reduce monetary awards by
claiming that the injured party contributed to their own injuries by
not using the required or recommended safety equipment, or by breaking
the law.

This is true - it's called "contributory negligence" - but I have not
seen any evidence that it has ever happened in the case of cycle
helmets, and it would be perverse if it did since the majority of
serious and fatal cyclist head injuries are the result of impacts well
beyond the design parameters of cycle helmets.

"In what is believed to be a precedent-setting ruling, the city has
been found partly to blame after a cyclist was "doored," or struck by
the opening door of a parked car.

[...]

Mr. Gleason said the court apportioned 50 per cent of the liability to
the motorist, 25 per cent to Ms. Evans because she wasn't wearing a
helmet, and 25 per cent to the city."

http://www.sneakeasysjoint.com/thecyclingdude/2004/08/city_of_toronto.html

Quoted message said:

Brian Walker, who tests helmets against standards in the UK, has this
to say:

"In a recent Court case, a respected materials specialist argued that
a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from
their cycle, without any real forward momentum, would not have had
their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event
involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy
potential of no more than 75 joules (his estimate, with which I was in
full agreement). The court found in favour of his argument. So a High
Court has decided that cycle helmets do not prevent injury even when
falling from a cycle onto a flat surface, with little forward
momentum. Cycle helmets will almost always perform much better against
a flat surface than any other."

"In other legal cases with which I have been involved, where a cyclist
has been in collision with a motorised vehicle, the impact energy
potentials generated were of a level which outstripped those we use to
certify Grand Prix drivers helmets. In some accidents at even moderate
motor vehicle speeds, energy potential levels in hundreds of joules
were present."

You might care to look up "Cycle helmets and contributory negligence.
Fulbrook J. Journal of Personal Injury Law 2004;3:171-91" which is a
fairly thorough treatment of the issue, albeit from a British
perspective.

Guy

On 31 May 2005 12:21:58 -0700, "D2" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I don't need reams of data to make a decision on whether or not to
wear a helmet. If the fact that riding a bicycle at speed, around
fast-moving traffic with very little between you and everything else
exposes you to more danger, oops I mean risk, than a walk to the
drugstore isn't apparent to you then no amount of numbers and charts
are going to sway you.

You think it exposes you to more risk? Well, you may be right. And
yet the actual measured number of injuries is less than the walk to
the drugstore, so the level of danger must be a lot lower than you
think!

It sounds to me as if your perception of risk is at odds with what the
objective data indicates.

Quoted message said:

And I don't need data when I have more than enough empirical evidence
to support MY decision to wear a helmet. I have no idea why you are so
infatuated with third-hand data and so determined to convince everyone
that your conclusions are the only correct ones.

Because you are the one saying people will be left drooling if they
ride without, and that it is reasonable to deprive these people of
legal redress, even though the source of such injuries is well beyond
the documented capabilities of any current helmet. Simple, really.

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

On Tue, 31 May 2005 17:49:26 -0400, Chris B.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Mr. Gleason said the court apportioned 50 per cent of the liability to
the motorist, 25 per cent to Ms. Evans because she wasn't wearing a
helmet, and 25 per cent to the city."

Ta, now I have seen one :-/

None known in the UK (where I live), and this may be related to the
fact that plastic hat wearing is compulsory in Ontario for under 18s I
think. Or maybe the lawyer was just clueless, as 25% is a figure
routinely used from seat belt cases from years back.

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

Frank K. said:

Again, we get no details from our anonymous bike messenger.

We've been over this a thousand times and I've
given the "details" a thousand times in a thousand
different threads. Boring. You KNOW I have the
details.

Quoted message said:

I've given
the best data I could find on comparative fatalities per hour from
several sources,

The only "data" you've given on US fatalities per hour
was the random unsourced chart from an article about
car fires in a 1993 issue of Design News. This
"information" is interesting to ponder--kind of like
a fortune out of a vending machine--but it does not
begin to approach the level of "data." Only you call
it "the best data I can find" without mentioning that
it can not be used as serious data because it is
unsourced and no methodology is given. It may be the
best data available--in other words, NO usable data
is available. And what's more, if you take a good
look at the chart in question, it seems to confirm
my suspicion that it was concocted at 3am by some
young and desperate magazine writer or editor.
Any time a claim is made about cycling fatalities
or injuries per hour, a claim is also made about
how much total cycling occurs each year. And who
in the hell knows how somebody might figure that
out, especially if they leave no sources or
methodology that can be checked. In this
case, the chart makes the claim that US cyclists
ride approximately 3.2 billion hours per year.
That seems a bit on the high side to put it mildly,
and you and I and Reilly Geary have gone over this
in a previous thread.

Quoted message said:

comparative ER visits,

Your mention of comparative Er visits is completely
meaningless for your purpose, if you're serious. If
you're just trying to propagandize some folks who
aren't so quick about statistics, you might have
something.

Quoted message said:

reasons for ER visits, etc.

Your repeated claim that most cyclist ER visits
are for "skinned knees" is the most foul of your
entire repetoir. The implication is unmistakable--
not only are crashed cyclists 'incompetent,' they
are pussies as well. I think you need to check your
definition of 'minor injury.' Minor injury in the
ER: lacerations requiring stitches, bad sprains
and strains requiring x-rays.

Anyone here ever been to the ER for skinned knees?
Surely somebody here would have, since it's the most
popular reason, right?

Quoted message said:

I'm not "pretending." I'm reporting the data I was able to find.

You're pretending. Either that or you don't
understand the available data and what it says.

Quoted message said:

And BTW, I didn't use every piece of data I found.

That's for sure. You never mention Moritz' finding that
cyclists are--what is it?--30 times more likely to be injured per mile
than drivers. This is from a survey that
you claim to have helped design, iirc. How come you never
mention it?

Quoted message said:

Moritz's data indicated that the riders surveyed in a national survey,
who rode over 2500 miles per year, crashed badly enough to do $50
damage, or seek cheap (average $125) medical treatment only once in 11
years.

The average respondent in that survey of LAB members was
47 and had been riding regularly for over 14 years. How
come you didn't mention that? How come you don't mention
that beginning riders are five times more likely to crash
and be injured as a rider with just ten years of
experience, a number that is well accepted by long time
cyclists? And you wouldn't want to mention that the
crash rate of those LAB cyclists would actually give
a high-mileage rider like me EIGHT injurious crashes
so far in my cycling career. That's a few too many,
wouldn't you say?

Quoted message said:

If I bent my rear derailleur, it would cost me more than $50. (It's
never happened to me, but _somebody_ has to do better than average.)
If it did happen, I'd say "OK, that would be a data point in Moritz's
study; but I still can't pretend cycling is dangerous."

The AVERAGE '50$ crash' in that survey was actually
a 300$+ crash in terms of property damage. How come
you don't mention that? And I guess you are too
inexperienced in these matters to realize that a
crash that does just 50$ of damage is also likely to
injure the rider.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's not going to wash with most of the population, who
have family members who have been killed or injured in auto
accidents, or have been injured themselves.

Oh please! Would you mind walking up to the next ten people you meet
and asking them a simple question: "How afraid are _you_ when you're
driving?" Unless you do this at an Agoraphobe's Anonymous meeting,
they're going to wonder about you.

In short, people do _not_ think driving is dangerous enough to worry
about.

You just explained why traffic is dangerous for
drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.

Robert

Quoted message said:

Frank K. said:

Again, we get no details from our anonymous bike messenger.

We've been over this a thousand times and I've
given the "details" a thousand times in a thousand
different threads. Boring. You KNOW I have the
details.

Oh, you've yammered before about how my data must be bad. I don't
recall you giving "good" data that disproves what I've found, though.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've given
the best data I could find on comparative fatalities per hour from
several sources,

The only "data" you've given on US fatalities per hour
was the random unsourced chart from an article about
car fires in a 1993 issue of Design News.

I've given miles-per-fatality data for England & Australia. I'm not
sure I can dig out the sources immediately, but they were on the order
of 16 million miles between fatalities. That comes to thousands of
years of riding per fatality.

I've mentioned comparative data from other countries. The general
trend is that cycling is roughly as safe, per hour, as motoring -
sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less. But if many countries'
agencies give the same general result, it sounds like corroboration to
me.

And as I've said before, if you want to claim cycling is "only" as safe
as motoring per hour, that's fine with me. I won't argue.

Can we agree to a truce on that point?

Quoted message said:

And what's more, if you take a good
look at the chart in question, it seems to confirm
my suspicion that it was concocted at 3am by some
young and desperate magazine writer or editor.

Mr. Anonymous Bike Messenger, such judgment on your part is ludicrous.
Are you claiming the editor falsified the data, or lied in claiming it
was tabulated by the biggest risk consultation firm in the US? You're
perilously close to libeling an editor, simply because you don't like
the data he printed - because in a list ranking the danger of a dozen
activities, they made cycling sound too safe for you!

As always, I'm astonished at your dedication to making cycling sound
dangerous. But I'm newly astonished that you'd stoop to libel.

Quoted message said:

Your mention of comparative Er visits is completely
meaningless for your purpose, if you're serious.

I know. It's fine to say bicyclists suffer 560,000 ER visits per year,
because that sounds sufficiently scary to you. It's wrong to say
basketball players suffer 640,000 ER visits per year, because that puts
the cycling figure in context and makes cycling sound not so bad. It's
wrong to point out that the number of hours spent cycling almost
certainly exceeds that playing basketball, so the per-hour figure is
even harder for you to swallow. It's wrong to point out there are as
many ER visits due to injuries from soft furniture as from bicycles.

IOW, your unstated standard is clear: If it make cycling sound bad,
it's good. If it makes cycling sound good, I shouldn't mention it!

Quoted message said:

Your repeated claim that most cyclist ER visits
are for "skinned knees" is the most foul of your
entire repetoir. [sic]

My specific claim is that almost all the injuries of cyclists treated
in ERs are medically classified as "minor." Check out the paper.
Stutts, et. al, "Bicycle Accidents: An Examination of Hospital
Emergency Room Reports and Comparison with Police Accident Data,"
Transportation Research Record #1168

Perhaps you will then start libeling Mr. Stutts?

Quoted message said:

The implication is unmistakable--
not only are crashed cyclists 'incompetent,' they
are pussies as well.

Bull. I think there are several reasons for this: First, road rash,
while minor, hurts a lot and bleeds a lot; people are scared of it, and
want something for pain. Second, most riding (and most crashing) is
done during times ordinary doctors are closed, so in the amazing US
medical system, there's not much selection in between a bandaid and the
ER. Third, there's the "OMIGOD!" factor, promoted by people like
yourself: "OMIGOD! YOU FELL OFF YOUR BIKE! YOU MIGHT DIE! LET'S
RUSH YOU TO THE ER!" Justified? No, but people like you contribute to
that nonsense.

Quoted message said:

I think you need to check your
definition of 'minor injury.' Minor injury in the
ER: lacerations requiring stitches, bad sprains
and strains requiring x-rays.

How do you think the folks in the ER would classify road rash?

Quoted message said:

You never mention Moritz' finding that
cyclists are--what is it?--30 times more likely to be injured per mile
than drivers. This is from a survey that
you claim to have helped design, iirc. How come you never
mention it?

Hmm. I think certain fumes must be getting thick in the room where
you're typing, R15757! I had nothing to do with Moritz's survey
(except being a respondent), and I _certainly_ never claimed to have
helped design it!

Regarding the "30 times more likely to be injured per mile," I see
nothing about that in Moritz's paper. Maybe I missed it. Please give
a detailed citation, including what's being counted as an "injury" ...
or, if necessary, let us know you made that one up too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Moritz's data indicated that the riders surveyed in a national survey,
who rode over 2500 miles per year, crashed badly enough to do $50
damage, or seek cheap (average $125) medical treatment only once in 11
years.

The average respondent in that survey of LAB members was
47 and had been riding regularly for over 14 years. How
come you didn't mention that?

??? Well, I could, I guess. do you want me to re-type the entire
paper???

Quoted message said:

How come you don't mention
that beginning riders are five times more likely to crash
and be injured as a rider with just ten years of
experience, a number that is well accepted by long time
cyclists?

I hate to echo you, but: Can you give the specific source for that
number, and can you tell how it was determined?

It may be true, of course. However, there's that unspecified "be
injured" thing again. And there's the question of the validity of
_that_ data.

Quoted message said:

And you wouldn't want to mention that the
crash rate of those LAB cyclists would actually give
a high-mileage rider like me EIGHT injurious crashes
so far in my cycling career. That's a few too many,
wouldn't you say?

I have no idea. All I seem to recall about your riding is that you
disobey traffic laws fairly frequently (because you know better than
mere law-abiding cyclists), and that you were hit while running a red
light. But I admit, I could be thinking of someone else. The
anonymous bike messengers tend to be hard to tell apart!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If I bent my rear derailleur, it would cost me more than $50. (It's
never happened to me, but _somebody_ has to do better than average.)
If it did happen, I'd say "OK, that would be a data point in Moritz's
study; but I still can't pretend cycling is dangerous."

The AVERAGE '50$ crash' in that survey was actually
a 300$+ crash in terms of property damage. How come
you don't mention that?

For those who need to review the math: Moritz gave "mean" figure for
property damage, and he gave the "median." Both are ways of computing
what lay people call the "average." "Mean" is the more common way, but
it's seriously biased by one outlying point. In other words, the
"mean" of the salaries of Bill Gates, a butcher, a baker, a candlestick
maker and a bike messenger would be many millions of dollars. But it
would not represent anything like the "typical" salary!

"Median" does not suffer from this weakness. The "median" of those
salaries would be the one in the middle... probably the baker's. And
it would be more meaningful, if you want to understand what people
typically make.

Moritz's "mean" property damage was, indeed, $316, which must have
included some very expensive crashes. The "median" property damage was
$100. And these were for respondents whose mean annual expenditure on
cycling was $1100 - quite a lot, I'd say! (At least, I don't come
close to spending $1100 per year!) We may be seeing bias caused by a
population with unusually expensive bikes.

Quoted message said:

And I guess you are too
inexperienced in these matters to realize that a
crash that does just 50$ of damage is also likely to
injure the rider.

Well, I will admit to being _very_ inexperienced at crashing! The only
moving on-road fall I've had since the early 1970s tore my windbreaker.
The jacket was not worth $50, BTW. I did scratch my knee (the dreaded
"minor injury of a lower extremity!!!"😉 but I put the bandaid on
myself. ;-)

But still - if I'd dropped my bike on my derailleur, that would mean
I'd be injured??

Quoted message said:

You just explained why traffic is dangerous for
drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.

Gosh, don't stop there! There's basketball, there's touch football,
there's backyard baseball, there are ladders, there are stairs, there's
ice skating, there's jogging, there's swimming, boating, playground
equipment, climbing trees, jumping rope, working on cars, eating fast
food, and typing stuff for the internet! (CARPAL TUNNEL!!! CARPAL
TUNNEL!!!)

Why not find something else to whine about? Leave cycling alone.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Robert

Quoted message said:

Oh, you've yammered before about how my data must be bad. I don't
recall you giving "good" data that disproves what I've found, though.

That's because the data doesn't exist. Neither one of
us has any good data on per-hour anything. Your
continuing to insist that you have data isn't going
to make it any more true.

Quoted message said:

I've mentioned comparative data from other countries. The general
trend is that cycling is roughly as safe, per hour, as motoring -
sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less. But if many countries'
agencies give the same general result, it sounds like corroboration to
me.

Oh jeez, where to start. "general result"--corroboration
of what? There is vast difference in stated per-hour
fatality numbers among cyclists in different countries.

Quoted message said:

From half as bad as driving, to twice as bad. Which is it? Can you tell

us the methodology used in gathering numbers
for each country? What makes you think they could do
somewhere else what we can't do here, that is,
determine accurate per-hour fatality numbers? How dothey claim to
calculate the total number of hours cycled in,
say, France? How does information from Europe
translate to the US, if at all?

Quoted message said:

And as I've said before, if you want to claim cycling is "only" as safe
as motoring per hour, that's fine with me. I won't argue.

Can we agree to a truce on that point?

I'd say that with the available data--the real data,
not the wish sandwich data--claiming that cycling is
as safe as motoring per hour is dubious at best.
First of all, it is obvious that cyclists are far more
likely to be injured (choose any definition) than
drivers of MVs. Second, whether cycling is half as
deadly, as deadly, twice as deadly, or three times as
deadly as driving remains to be seen, because no good data
exists despite your hopeful efforts to wish it into
existence. So, in terms of injuries: cycling more
dangerous. In terms of fatalities: the jury's out.
One thing is fairly certain: the claim of the Design
News chart that US cyclists face a risk of death
equal to one death every 4 million miles is on the low
end, because the simultaneous claim that US cyclists
ride 3.2 billion hours per year (every man woman child
rides 10 hours per year), while perhaps in the realm
of possibility, is way up there on the high end. Anyone
with half a brain can agree on that.
Overall: cycling appears to be more dangerous than
driving. Neither seems hugely deadly on a per-
hour basis.

I would agree that cycling is not much more dangerous,
generally speaking, than driving. But I think that
driving is plenty dangerous. Perhaps you would like
to see some statistics?

In this thread you are in the untenable position of
trumpeting the danger of driving and walking in traffic
to the unwitting pro-helmeteers who wandered into
your web ("be sure and wear a helmet when walking near
traffic"😉 and proclaiming how silly I am for pointing
out that traffic is dangerous. Which is it? Is traffic
dangerous or not? What do the STATISTICS say Frank?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And what's more, if you take a good
look at the chart in question, it seems to confirm
my suspicion that it was concocted at 3am by some
young and desperate magazine writer or editor.

Mr. Anonymous Bike Messenger, such judgment on your part is ludicrous.
Are you claiming the editor falsified the data, or lied in claiming it
was tabulated by the biggest risk consultation firm in the US?

I guess you've never worked in the publishing
industry. I'm saying the editor did his job with
the material he had, and there's no telling what
material he had. Since this was for an article on
car fires, it's no stretch to think that the
numbers on cycling and other activities were
fudged. The point of the chart is that, hey folks,
car fires are pretty rare. Perhaps, more than
anything, the chart was included as a graphic
device--to make the page jump a little bit. Safe to
say it was not intended as reference material for
those hoping to determine the relative danger of
driving and cycling.

Quoted message said:

As always, I'm astonished at your dedication to making cycling sound
dangerous. But I'm newly astonished that you'd stoop to libel.

Quoted message said:

Your mention of comparative Er visits is completely
meaningless for your purpose, if you're serious.

I know. It's fine to say bicyclists suffer 560,000 ER visits per year,
because that sounds sufficiently scary to you. It's wrong to say
basketball players suffer 640,000 ER visits per year, because that puts
the cycling figure in context and makes cycling sound not so bad. It's
wrong to point out that the number of hours spent cycling almost
certainly exceeds that playing basketball, so the per-hour figure is
even harder for you to swallow. It's wrong to point out there are as
many ER visits due to injuries from soft furniture as from bicycles.

Once again your response to my criticism of this
trickery is to repeat it without coherent defense.

Quoted message said:

IOW, your unstated standard is clear: If it make cycling sound bad,
it's good. If it makes cycling sound good, I shouldn't mention it!

It only makes cycling "sound" safe, but that is not what
those numbers actually betray. I suppose that is your
number one goal, for whatever reason, to make cycling
sound safe.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your repeated claim that most cyclist ER visits
are for "skinned knees" is the most foul of your
entire repetoir. [sic]

My specific claim is that almost all the injuries of cyclists treated
in ERs are medically classified as "minor." Check out the paper.
Stutts, et. al, "Bicycle Accidents: An Examination of Hospital
Emergency Room Reports and Comparison with Police Accident Data,"
Transportation Research Record #1168

Perhaps you will then start libeling Mr. Stutts?

Yes, and what does "minor" mean in ER land, Frank?
We've been over this, very recently...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The implication is unmistakable--
not only are crashed cyclists 'incompetent,' they
are pussies as well.

Bull. I think there are several reasons for this: First, road rash,
while minor, hurts a lot and bleeds a lot; people are scared of it, and
want something for pain.

Road rash doesn't bleed a lot. It kind of oozes.
Lacerations and compound fractures bleed a lot.

Quoted message said:

Second, most riding (and most crashing) is
done during times ordinary doctors are closed, so in the amazing US
medical system, there's not much selection in between a bandaid and the
ER. Third, there's the "OMIGOD!" factor, promoted by people like
yourself: "OMIGOD! YOU FELL OFF YOUR BIKE! YOU MIGHT DIE! LET'S
RUSH YOU TO THE ER!" Justified? No, but people like you contribute to
that nonsense.

Frank. I think you've completely lost it. People like
me don't go to the ER unless it's absolutely necessary.
Even then, maybe not. I know hundreds of high mileage
cyclists and I've never heard of a single one of them
going to the ER for road rash. Not one. Never.

Once again, anybody on this forum ever go to the ER
for 'skinned knees'? Anybody, ever?

Adults don't go the ER for skinned knees.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think you need to check your
definition of 'minor injury.' Minor injury in the
ER: lacerations requiring stitches, bad sprains
and strains requiring x-rays.

How do you think the folks in the ER would classify road rash?

You mean, AFTER they got done laughing? And chasing
you out the door? (Actually they would poke you a bit,
act concerned, smeer some cream on it, maybe put a
bandage on it, THEN they would kick you out the door
and laugh amongst themselves.) I think they would call it
a "superficial" injury. In the ER-speak of NEISS, road
rash is classified as CT/AB (contusion/abrasion).
Some CT/AB can be quite unusually serious. You should
also know that in the NEISS raw data in my
possession, CT/AB are indeed a popular category,
but no more popular than LAC or FRAC. "Minor" injuries
tend to be much more serious than road rash.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You never mention Moritz' finding that
cyclists are--what is it?--30 times more likely to be injured per mile
than drivers. This is from a survey that
you claim to have helped design, iirc. How come you never
mention it?

Hmm. I think certain fumes must be getting thick in the room where
you're typing, R15757! I had nothing to do with Moritz's survey
(except being a respondent), and I _certainly_ never claimed to have
helped design it!

Regarding the "30 times more likely to be injured per mile," I see
nothing about that in Moritz's paper. Maybe I missed it. Please give
a detailed citation, including what's being counted as an "injury" ...
or, if necessary, let us know you made that one up too.

Oh, so sorry, I meant Ken Kifer's study that found
"an injury is 33 times more likely to occur from riding a
bike as opposed to driving a car for the same distance."
Kifer made sure that these cyclists had experienced a "real injury, not
just a visit to the doctor..."

This is the study that you claimed to help design, and
which you magically continue to forget to mention anytime
the relative danger of driving and cycling comes up.

www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/sur vey/sept01.htm.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Moritz's data indicated that the riders surveyed in a national survey,
who rode over 2500 miles per year, crashed badly enough to do $50
damage, or seek cheap (average $125) medical treatment only once in 11
years.

The average respondent in that survey of LAB members was
47 and had been riding regularly for over 14 years. How
come you didn't mention that?

??? Well, I could, I guess. do you want me to re-type the entire
paper???

Quoted message said:

How come you don't mention
that beginning riders are five times more likely to crash
and be injured as a rider with just ten years of
experience, a number that is well accepted by long time
cyclists?

I hate to echo you, but: Can you give the specific source for that
number, and can you tell how it was determined?

Forester. He got the number by looking at all the
available accident surveys available (ie, Kaplan).

Quoted message said:

It may be true, of course. However, there's that unspecified "be
injured" thing again. And there's the question of the validity of
_that_ data.

Quoted message said:

And you wouldn't want to mention that the
crash rate of those LAB cyclists would actually give
a high-mileage rider like me EIGHT injurious crashes
so far in my cycling career. That's a few too many,
wouldn't you say?

I have no idea.

I'm telling you, it's too many. Pardon me if I dont
bow down at the altar of LAB cyclists who are supposedly
showing us how incredibly safe cycling is by injuring
themselves once in 30000 miles, because I have to do
much much better than that. Or else I will be injured
all the damn time.

Quoted message said:

Why not find something else to whine about? Leave cycling alone.

Leave cyclists alone. Why you are so bent on
making sure that the same disease which afflicts
American drivers (nonchalance in traffic) should also
afflict American cyclists is beyond me. What's
the upside to that endeavor?

Robert

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Second, most riding (and most crashing) is
done during times ordinary doctors are closed, so in the amazing US
medical system, there's not much selection in between a bandaid and the
ER. Third, there's the "OMIGOD!" factor, promoted by people like
yourself: "OMIGOD! YOU FELL OFF YOUR BIKE! YOU MIGHT DIE! LET'S
RUSH YOU TO THE ER!" Justified? No, but people like you contribute to
that nonsense.

Frank. I think you've completely lost it. People like
me don't go to the ER unless it's absolutely necessary.
Even then, maybe not. I know hundreds of high mileage
cyclists and I've never heard of a single one of them
going to the ER for road rash. Not one. Never.

Once again, anybody on this forum ever go to the ER
for 'skinned knees'? Anybody, ever?

Adults don't go the ER for skinned knees.

Actually, the scenario Frank describes does occur. Bicyclists and
motor vehicle occupents both come to the ER by ambulance as trauma
activations and are found to be without significant injury, not even a
laceration to stitch. Some of these are drunk folks and some are
involved in collisions where the mechanism for serious injury was
present i.e., high speed, bike destroyed, that sort of thing.

I wouldn't say they come because of a skinned knee, but sometimes
thats all they've got.

Donn Deniston said:

Since I've been painted as a pro-helmet zealot and since statistics
are so important, how about these: {small snip followed by humongous one}

Quoted message said:

"The majority of fatal bicycle crashes involving children and
adolescents (75 percent) could have been prevented with bicycle
helmets."

You do realize how poorly worded that sentence is, right? (How does a
helm*t prevent a crash?!?) That you would quote it doesn't reflect well /on
you/.

Dude, I'm on your side in this *endless* debate, but please... GIVE IT A
REST.

Bill Sornson said:

Donn Deniston said:

Since I've been painted as a pro-helmet zealot and since statistics
are so important, how about these: {small snip followed by humongous one}

Quoted message said:

"The majority of fatal bicycle crashes involving children and
adolescents (75 percent) could have been prevented with bicycle
helmets."

You do realize how poorly worded that sentence is, right? (How does a
helm*t prevent a crash?!?) That you would quote it doesn't reflect well /on
you/.

Dude, I'm on your side in this *endless* debate, but please... GIVE IT A
REST.

Hey, I agree with the give it a rest, but you're tellin' the wrong
guy.

Life is Good!
Jeff

Jeff Starr said:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 03:32:50 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dude, I'm on your side in this *endless* debate, but please... GIVE
IT A REST.

Hey, I agree with the give it a rest, but you're tellin' the wrong
guy.

Why? He just posted 10 KBs' worth of mostly worthless quotes in the middle
of a thread (with no other attributions left intact, IIRC).

THE MADNESS MUST END!!!

Donn Deniston said:

Since I've been painted as a pro-helmet zealot and since statistics are so
important, how about these:

Do you want me to tell you the problems with each of those studies?

If you're really interested, visit www.cyclehelmets.org where you can
find detailed information on nearly all of them. I'll make just a few
points, though.

First, note the recurrence of the "85%" or "88%" figure. This is by
far the most popularly quoted figure for possible protective effects of
helmets, specifically because it is the largest ever found. That
figure came from a case-control study of 235 cyclists in Washington, by
a rabidly pro-helmet team of doctors, Thompson, Rivara et. al. This
study is so notorious it's often referred to simply as the "T&R" study.
Anyone who's read more than half an hour on this issue knows about it.

So what's the problem? Briefly: Like all case-control helmet studies,
it deals with self-selected subjects, and as such the "controls" differ
significantly from the "cases." In the case of the 1989 T&R study, the
"cases" (those with some head injury) were shown to be lower income,
more "ethnic," more often riding on the street, more often hit by cars,
more often falling on hard surfaces - and less likely to wear helmets.
The helmeted "controls" were mostly white, more often riding on bike
paths, less often hit by cars, more often falling on soft surfaces, and
well insured - and more likely to wear helmets. Despite all these
differences, T&R attributed the differences in injury rates to the
helmets.

There's more. T&R classes things like scratched ears and scratched
chins as "head injuries" (you know - an injury above the neck) to
inflate the scary-sounding numbers. Also, it was shown conclusively
that the helmeted folks suffered more falls than the unhelmeted. This
has been interpreted various ways, but I think it's an indication that
the ones in helmets (who were early adopters) were probably the ones
who ran to the ER at the slightest provocation.

Finally, another researcher was able to obtain the original data set,
and with it and T&R's computation techniques, showed similar "proof"
that the helmets protected not only 85% of head injuries, but also 72%
of _non_ head injuries, like broken legs!

In brief, that study used a technique that would never be allowed for
any other medical intervention, and it predicts results that are both
ludicrously optimistic, and never seen in real life.

It is EXTREMELY popular to quote it, though, if you're promoting
helmets, as you've proven. It's also been used as justification for
many helmet laws - none of which have delivered.

But there's more. While the great bulk of the "head injuries" in the
T&R '89 paper were trivial, others have used that "85%" figure to claim
that helmets would prevent 85% of _fatalities_ - something even T&R
never claimed! One of your quotes reflects this. Of course, in
journal discussions, T&R never corrected this misinterpretation of
their work. They are, after all, helmet promoters.

There's even more. The Cochrane Review which you mentioned is a
review of multiple studies, a "meta-study" to supposedly get the drift
of a variety of research. But the review they did studied mostly their
own papers! They carefully omitted the many papers that found contrary
evidence - so, of course, their own review of their own papers
confirmed their own papers! As I said, they are first and foremost
helmet promoters. (BTW, the Snell Memorial Foundation, which exists to
promote helmets, is a big funder of T&R, and has paid for special
publication of their helmet-promotion "studies" in at least one journal
to which I subscribed.)

In general, almost all pro-helmet papers have been on the same model:
Compare voluntary wearers, especially safety-conscious early adopters,
with people who don't wear helmets. Attribute _all_ the differences to
the helmets.

The other type of paper that gives positive results for helmets
compares head injuries before and after mandatory helmet laws. The
usual trick here is to ignore any drop in cycling - and _enforced_ laws
have always caused big drops in cycling. Another trick that's been
used is to simultaneously enforce speeding laws, drunk driving laws,
etc. but attribute any safety benefits only to helmets. It's been
shown for many jurisdictions that per-rider head injuries track
pedestrian head injuries almost exactly - and that they don't track
helmet use at all.

If you'd like more detailed discussion on these points, I suggest
www.cyclehelmets.org

Seriously - try to get both sides of the story. This is not a simple
issue.

Quoted message said:

So Frank, I took your advice to heart and spent a little bit of time
researching the subject. Not as much time as you have but I'm a busy guy.
The result? I'm right back where I started which is:

1.) I think helmet use should be elective.

I absolutely agree.

Quoted message said:

2.) I think cycling exposes the participant to certain risks that justify
the use of a helmet.

Well, for you it may. The risks are extremely similar to the risks
inherent in driving and walking. Promotion of driving and walking
helmets has actually taken place, BTW. But somehow, almost all people
think helmets are silly for those activities, while a vocal few think
they're absolutely necessary for the similar risk in cycling! Weird.

Quoted message said:

3.) I prefer to wear one.

And you're welcome to!

Quoted message said:

4.) Stats are really useful, especially if you're the one paying for them.

Yep! Snell, the companies that contribute to Snell, and the T&R team
knwo that extremely well! But you should consider: The helmet
skeptics are selling nothing. They have no profit to make from
"buying" statistics. As they say - "Follow the money."

Quoted message said:

(this is the one that bugs Frank the most):
5.) a.) If a law exists that mandates helmet use and:
b.) If a cyclist chooses to ignore that law and:
c.) If they are involved in an accident that results in a head
injury and:
d.) The cyclist elects to litigate against another party and:
e.) It can be proved that that injury could have been prevented or
minimized with the use of a helmet then;
f.) The award, if there is one, should be weighed appropiately.

This is somewhat more measured than what you said previously, so I'd
say we're making progress!

I'll point out that laws as mentined in "a)" are something that you, I
and most others posting here deplore - or claim to.

And I'll point out that the proof mentioned in "e)" is - or should be
considered - practically impossible.

That doesn't mean, however, that some lawyer for some wealthy,
irresponsible driver wouldn't try to make a cyclist pay for his
client's negligence. As others have mentioned, this has already been
used with some success in at least one instance, despite the lack of a
mandatory helmet law (point "a"😉.

In other words, the helmet promotion brigade has already done harm.

Quoted message said:

Or should I ignore all those statistics I've read and quoted above and just
believe Frank because . . . because . . . because he said so?

Oh, I never said to believe something just because I said so! I try
hard to make my points using fact and logic. Again, I urge you to look
into those points in more detail. www.cyclehelmets.org is an excellent
place to start. You might also try getting the relevant papers from
the library, as I've done, and reading them critically. Look for
strong points and weak points. Think about the math and the logic.

Quoted message said:

So we still disagree Frank, only now I guess I can disagree with a bunch of
stats to support my opinion. As far as my idea regarding the legal
ramifications (or punishment as you like to call it), well, we both know
that it's not likely to happen so you'll just have to live with it.

As I pointed out above, there have _definitely_ been attempts to punish
cyclists in exactly the way you proposed. I know of one that
definitely succeeded, and two or three others that failed. And in none
of those was a mandatory helmet law in force, AFAIK. IOW, you're wrong
about the "not likely to happen." These attitudes really _are_
anti-cyclist!

Quoted message said:

We have
our differences and to me the biggest difference is that I'm willing to let
people make up their own minds while you spend a LOT of time gathering ammo
so you can climb on your soapbox and admonish anyone who challenges your
precious stats.

I'm definitely willing to let people make up their own mind. Note,
while the helmet promoters are frequently against that, I've repeatedly
said you can wear what you want, for whatever reason you want!

However, if someone pumps out misinformation, I'll call them on it.
And if someone attacks cycling, I'll defend it. Sorry if that bothers
you, but I don't plan on stopping.

Quoted message said:

Live and let live Frank, It's a good thing.

Yes, live and let live.

Another one I like: Live and learn. Visit www.cyclehelmets.org so you
can start that process.

- Frank Krygowski

1 Jun 2005 21:29:12 -0700,
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Finally, another researcher was able to obtain the original data set,
and with it and T&R's computation techniques, showed similar "proof"
that the helmets protected not only 85% of head injuries, but also 72%
of _non_ head injuries, like broken legs!

Now that I'll believe. I usually wear a helmet but one of the very
rare times I choose to not wear one. . . what happens?
Yep, broke my damn leg!
--
zk

Jim Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Second, most riding (and most crashing) is
done during times ordinary doctors are closed, so in the amazing US
medical system, there's not much selection in between a bandaid and the
ER. Third, there's the "OMIGOD!" factor, promoted by people like
yourself: "OMIGOD! YOU FELL OFF YOUR BIKE! YOU MIGHT DIE! LET'S
RUSH YOU TO THE ER!" Justified? No, but people like you contribute to
that nonsense.

Frank. I think you've completely lost it. People like
me don't go to the ER unless it's absolutely necessary.
Even then, maybe not. I know hundreds of high mileage
cyclists and I've never heard of a single one of them
going to the ER for road rash. Not one. Never.

Once again, anybody on this forum ever go to the ER
for 'skinned knees'? Anybody, ever?

Adults don't go the ER for skinned knees.

Actually, the scenario Frank describes does occur. Bicyclists and
motor vehicle occupents both come to the ER by ambulance as trauma
activations and are found to be without significant injury, not even a
laceration to stitch. Some of these are drunk folks and some are
involved in collisions where the mechanism for serious injury was
present i.e., high speed, bike destroyed, that sort of thing.

I wouldn't say they come because of a skinned knee, but sometimes
thats all they've got.

Yes, if somebody gets hit bad enough that a bystander
calls 911, the EMTs responding are going to very
cautiously go into action on the victim even if the
most serious visible sign of trauma is road rash.
That's because when somebody gets bludgeoned by a car
there is a strong chance of internal hemorrhage,
the symptoms of which can grow slowly and subtly.
That's how folks die in bike accidents, generally,
head injury or otherwise--they bleed out on the inside.
So any accident victim will have to fight off the
paramedics and give a very convincing speech if
they don't want to see the ER, and rightfully so.

Even with that caution in full effect, and even
taking into account children, Frank's contention that
most cyclist ER visits are for skinned knees is complete
[censored].

Robert