Re: I crash into religion

Per jtaylor:

Quoted message said:

But people don't normally do that when riding a bicycle

Depends on the terrain and how aggressive and/or inept the rider is.

My personal attitude adjustment came one day when I'd just hopped some railroad
tracks and was going up through a clay ravine. Front wheel washed out in the
wet clay, melon went "splat" sideways on the ground. When I came to, I noted a
pointed pyramid-shaped outcropping several inches high just a few inches from
where my temple impacted.

About a year later I forgot that I didn't have knobbies on, jumped a curb onto
an inclined bank. Front wheel washed out again, side face plant into the bank.
No rocks this time - but I was still glad to be wearing a helmet.

Hot day? Bike path? Baseball cap. No sense being obsessive about this.
But helmets definitely have their time and place.
--
PeteCresswell

jtaylor said:

But people don't normally do that when riding a bicycle - such events are
more likely when driving (or being driven in) a motorcar. Why do you wear a
helmet in the less dangerous situation but not the more?

I don't see wearing a hat as relying on a talisman as you write earlier.
I am not relying on anything. My reason for using a helmet from now on
is that I have learned by experience how forceful a bicycle crash can
be. Before, I figured a bicycle crash was a mild occurrence. I now don't
think that.

What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by choosing
now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What is the
downside of helmet use? Let's say you are right in that I'd be better
off also wearing a hat when I drive my truck. I'll grant you that. Let's
say I spend 50% of my time in my truck and 50% on my bike. I wear the
hat only on the bike. Am I not better off at least somewhat by that than
never wearing the hat?

Again, what is the downside here?

Paul Cassel said:

jtaylor said:

But people don't normally do that when riding a bicycle - such
events are more likely when driving (or being driven in) a motorcar.
Why do you wear a helmet in the less dangerous situation but not the
more?

I don't see wearing a hat as relying on a talisman as you write
earlier. I am not relying on anything. My reason for using a helmet
from now on is that I have learned by experience how forceful a
bicycle crash can be. Before, I figured a bicycle crash was a mild
occurrence. I now don't think that.

What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by
choosing now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What
is the downside of helmet use? Let's say you are right in that I'd be
better off also wearing a hat when I drive my truck. I'll grant you
that. Let's say I spend 50% of my time in my truck and 50% on my
bike. I wear the hat only on the bike. Am I not better off at least
somewhat by that than never wearing the hat?

Again, what is the downside here?

Disagreeing with an over-emotional ideologue.

HTH, BS

Paul Cassel said:

What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by choosing
now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What is the
downside of helmet use? Let's say you are right in that I'd be better
off also wearing a hat when I drive my truck. I'll grant you that. Let's
say I spend 50% of my time in my truck and 50% on my bike. I wear the
hat only on the bike. Am I not better off at least somewhat by that than
never wearing the hat?

Again, what is the downside here?

One possible downside is the feeling - perhaps subconscious - that you
are now significantly protected. If this leads you to ride even a
little less carefully, it could be a net loss in safety. The effect is
known as "risk compensation" or "risk homeostasis" and it's pretty
thoroughly proven - and not only for bike helmets, BTW.

Be aware that the claims of "85% protection" from helmets are garbage,
refuted many times. Be aware that bike helmets are tested and
certified only for very minor impacts. Specifically, the certification
procedure tests only for "protection" of a disembodied head in a direct
drop of about six feet. This is equivalent to toppling off your
stationary bike.

So if your helmet gives you the confidence to take that bridge at 25
mph again, and if your fall causes your head hits something like a
vertical post, your helmet may have killed you.

You might try using "This thing is pretty worthless" as a frequent
mantra. Or, as one researcher in the field said "Wearing a bike helmet
might possibly help, if you could only convince yourself it was
useless."

Good luck out there. More to the point, ride with care.

- Frank Krygowski

Paul Cassel said:

Again, what is the downside here?

Well Rogers, in a study of 8 million US cyclists found that "The most
surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is
positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use"

Mok et al found that children who wore helmets and were involved in
cycling accidents had more damage to their bikes and reported they had
ridden faster than those who hadn't worn a helmet.

Robinson found the mandatory helmet laws which doubled helmet wearing in
Australia and New Zealand led to an increase in head injury rates for
cyclists.

Which country has the lowest cyclist head injury rate in the world? The
Netherlands. How many Dutch cyclists wear helmets - virtually none of them.

So the downside is you are probably more likely to suffer a head injury
wearing a helmet. No one is sure whether its risk compensation by the
cyclists or the motorist or whether it the extra mass and size a helmet
adds to your head in an accident but the effect is clearly there.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Quoted message said:

Paul Cassel said:

What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by
choosing now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What
is the downside of helmet use? Let's say you are right in that I'd
be better off also wearing a hat when I drive my truck. I'll grant
you that. Let's say I spend 50% of my time in my truck and 50% on my
bike. I wear the hat only on the bike. Am I not better off at least
somewhat by that than never wearing the hat?

Again, what is the downside here?

One possible downside is the feeling - perhaps subconscious - that you
are now significantly protected. If this leads you to ride even a
little less carefully, it could be a net loss in safety. The effect
is known as "risk compensation" or "risk homeostasis" and it's pretty
thoroughly proven - and not only for bike helmets, BTW.

Be aware that the claims of "85% protection" from helmets are garbage,
refuted many times. Be aware that bike helmets are tested and
certified only for very minor impacts. Specifically, the
certification procedure tests only for "protection" of a disembodied
head in a direct drop of about six feet. This is equivalent to
toppling off your stationary bike.

So if your helmet gives you the confidence to take that bridge at 25
mph again, and if your fall causes your head hits something like a
vertical post, your helmet may have killed you.

You might try using "This thing is pretty worthless" as a frequent
mantra. Or, as one researcher in the field said "Wearing a bike
helmet might possibly help, if you could only convince yourself it was
useless."

Good luck out there. More to the point, ride with care.

Condescend much?

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul Cassel

(') said:

What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by
choosing now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What is
the downside of helmet use?

Statistically, an increased risk of death and serious injury. No, I don't
know why. It may simply be that people are more likely to wear helmets
when doing things they know to be risky. Or it may be a consequence of
the helmet increasing the size and weight of the head, or of increased
rotational injury.

Anecdotal data doesn't help much in understanding this. But here's an
anecdotal data point which might interest you. Two weeks ago I was out
with a group doing Mountain Bike Leader training, and I was wearing a
helmet - something I very rarely do.

I fell. My back wheel lost grip on a fast muddy bend and I went down
hard. My head - or rather my helmet - hit the ground for the first time
ever, after literally thousands of mountain bike falls. It was, as such
falls often are, quite sudden and I had little time to react to it. I
obviously can't say for certain that had I not been wearing a helmet my
head would not have hit the ground. But it's interesting that it did.

Quoted message said:

Let's say I spend 50% of my time in my truck and 50% on my bike.
I wear the hat only on the bike. Am I not better off at least somewhat
by that than never wearing the hat?

Not if wearing a hat increases your chance of getting killed. Which, on
current statistical data, seems to be the case. A lot more serious study
is needed here, but nobody seems to be doing it.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"The result is a language that... not even its mother could
love. Like the camel, Common Lisp is a horse designed by
committee. Camels do have their uses."
;; Scott Fahlman, 7 March 1995

(PeteCresswell) said:

Hot day? Bike path? Baseball cap.

Even though bike paths are more dangerous than roads?

Quoted message said:

No sense being obsessive about this.

No sense in getting the facts wrong, either.

Quoted message said:

But helmets definitely have their time and place.

Indeed. They could be considered if cycling seriously off-road when
falling over is par for the course. They would also, if worn by car
occupants, be more beneficial than if worn by cyclists.

R.

Paul Cassel said:

What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by choosing
now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What is the
downside of helmet use?

There is evidence that cycle helmets, particularly the ones with
elongated peaks and rear peaks, can cause sharp twisting of the head in
a crash. This can lead to serious brain damage.

There is evidence that cycle helmet wearers are more likely to be
seriously injured/killed than bareheaded cyclists.

There is evidence that increased helmet use leads to decreased cycling
numbers, as wearing a helmet sends the message that cycling is a
dangerous activity, which it isn't. Decreased cycling numbers leads to
increased cyclist death/injury rates for the cyclists that remain.

See www.cyclehelmets.org for the references to the above evidence.

These are the downsides.

The upside, as far as I can see, is that it protects you against some
minor head injuries (bruising, scrapes).

It doesn't seem to me that their benefits outweigh their disbenefits.

R.

It's all black and white isn't it?

Helmets are dangerous.

Cycling isn't dangerous.

Helmets make you ride like an idiot.

Cycle paths are more dangerous than roads.

Everyone who says that helmets have prevented their heads from being bashed are either a) liars or b) obviously brain damaged from the impact.

Statistics are always correct. Unless they disagree. Then, only the ones you agree with are correct.

I wish I could be so cocksure about everything. Especially when advocating that people don't wear protective equipment. 🙄

wheelist said:

It's all black and white isn't it?

No.

Quoted message said:

Helmets are dangerous.

They can be.

Quoted message said:

Cycling isn't dangerous.

For some values of "dangerous", no it's not. Do you consider being a
pedestrian "dangerous"? Of course, it's fatal to many people, but by
and large considered safe. And since cycling is similarly safe it's not
unreasonable to describe it as "safe".

Quoted message said:

Helmets make you ride like an idiot.

There is good evidence that they can encourage risk taking behaviour.

Quoted message said:

Cycle paths are more dangerous than roads.

Often they are, same goes for riding on the pavement, and there are good
reasons for that.

Quoted message said:

Everyone who says that helmets have prevented their heads from being
bashed are either a) liars or b) obviously brain damaged from the
impact.

"bashed", no, but if they think it "saved their life" there's a good
chance they've over-estimated their effect.

Quoted message said:

Statistics are always correct. Unless they disagree. Then, only the
ones you agree with are correct.

It's fairly commonly been the case here that folk with science
backgrounds and access to extensive libraries have come into the debate
always wearing helmets because they thought it made a lot of sense, and
the more they've read and researched the more it has changed their
minds. I've yet to see it work the other way.
While I'd be daft to pretend I'm free of bias, my perception is that
zealously sticking to a single line and never entertaining change is far
more a characteristic of those pushing us to wear helmets. This is
quite easy to see in far narrower use of published literature cited to
support their cases, sometimes even ignoring their own work!

Quoted message said:

I wish I could be so cocksure about everything. 🙄

Most of us do, very few of us are. But for those who are least sure we
need good evidence to wear a hat as much as not to. Assuming it must do
good without any decent backup evidence isn't very smart.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

wheelist said:

It's all black and white isn't it?

No, it's all relative.

Quoted message said:

Helmets are dangerous.

Compared to not wearing them, it would appear so. But not by much.

Quoted message said:

Cycling isn't dangerous.

Compared to walking, it isn't. In some countries and some age groups
it's also safer than driving (per mile in both cases).

Quoted message said:

Helmets make you ride like an idiot.

A theory that may help explain the data.

Quoted message said:

Cycle paths are more dangerous than roads.

Cycle paths alongside roads, yes. Other cycle paths, hard to say - the
risks tend to be different.

Quoted message said:

Everyone who says that helmets have prevented their heads from being
bashed are either a) liars or b) obviously brain damaged from the
impact.

No. They could be right. It's saying a helmet has saved your life that
is almost certainly wrong.
They have failed to understand the difference between saving a
headache and saving your life.
They have failed to understand that skulls are stronger than cycle
helmets.
They have failed to understand that hitting your helmet does not
necessarily mean you would have hit your head without it.
They have failed to understand that there are as many corpses out
there whose helmets have cost them their lives as living people whose
helmets have genuinely saved them. And both numbers are tiny compared
to the 'destroyed helmet, must have saved my life' brigade.

Quoted message said:

Statistics are always correct. Unless they disagree. Then, only the
ones you agree with are correct.

In general, go with the largest sample sizes and the methodology in
which you can find least bias.

Quoted message said:

I wish I could be so cocksure about everything. 🙄

If you weigh the evidence and then decide, you can.

Where did this thread come from, anyway?

Colin McKenzie

--
In Britain, there is less justification for wearing cycling helmets
than there is for wearing walking helmets.

Response to wheelist:

Richard wrote:

"There is evidence that..."

"There is evidence that..."

"There is evidence that..."

"...as far as I can see..."

"It doesn't seem to me..."

and then you wrote

Quoted message said:

It's all black and white isn't it?

Quoted message said:

I wish I could be so cocksure about everything. 🙄

You would look less of a fool if you took care to read what you're
responding to.

--
Mark, UK
"One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary
to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes
beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is
likely to interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways."

Mark McNeill said:

Response to wheelist:

Richard wrote:

"There is evidence that..."

"There is evidence that..."

"There is evidence that..."

"...as far as I can see..."

"It doesn't seem to me..."

and then you wrote

Quoted message said:

It's all black and white isn't it?

Quoted message said:

I wish I could be so cocksure about everything. 🙄

You would look less of a fool if you took care to read what you're
responding to.

Ooh, get you, touchy [censored].

If you read my post you'll see that I didn't specifically respond to Richard. As you so eloquently point out, he qualifies all of statements quite correctly and therefore leaves little room for criticism.

My response was aimed more at the whole anti-helmet brigade - and you'll surely agree (actually you probably won't and will just be rude again) that the whole gist of this thread is that helmets are stupid. There's no arguing with the "anti-helmeters" and this theme is repeated over and over in various threads.

The point I was getting at (or trying to) is that at some time there will have been an incident where a helmet did save a person's life (there will also have been incidents where the opposite was true). Undoubtedly there's evidence both for and against their use and as such I find it difficult to see the incredible veracity of some of the arguments (or the relevance of some) against their use.

For example, citing Holland as an example that it's safer not to wear a helmet (as they have such low head-injury rates) just seems to me to be rather spurious. Holland is obviously a very safe place to cycle anyway. There's an entirely different attitude to cyclists there. To take such evidence and suggest that there's no need for helmets in the UK is daft.

Suggesting that I haven't read the thread, or haven't understood the arguments therewithin, and then name calling seems a little childish and rather petulant.

:p Heheh.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Again, what is the downside here?

One possible downside is the feeling - perhaps subconscious - that you
are now significantly protected. If this leads you to ride even a
little less carefully, it could be a net loss in safety. The effect is
known as "risk compensation" or "risk homeostasis" and it's pretty
thoroughly proven - and not only for bike helmets, BTW.

Be aware that the claims of "85% protection" from helmets are garbage,
refuted many times. Be aware that bike helmets are tested and
certified only for very minor impacts. Specifically, the certification
procedure tests only for "protection" of a disembodied head in a direct
drop of about six feet. This is equivalent to toppling off your
stationary bike.

So if your helmet gives you the confidence to take that bridge at 25
mph again, and if your fall causes your head hits something like a
vertical post, your helmet may have killed you.

You might try using "This thing is pretty worthless" as a frequent
mantra. Or, as one researcher in the field said "Wearing a bike helmet
might possibly help, if you could only convince yourself it was
useless."

Good luck out there. More to the point, ride with care.

I agree with you and have myself made that argument to my friend who
rides in a full armor suit on a bicycle or motorcycle. He recently took
a stop light tip over on his Ducati which broke his leg, knee, shoulder
and ribs and maybe more. His speed was maybe 3 mph.

Given that most of my injuries are not to my head, but body, I doubt
I'll consider wearing a hat as proof against injury. I only mentioned my
head injuries because these are ones which a hat may have mitigated.

I come to bicycling from motorcycling where we've moved to full coverage
hats due to facial injuries in open or 'cop' helmets. While I believe
that a helmet will make me a bit safer, I think we all need to make our
choices.

Here I can choose to wear or not wear as well as take greater chances if
I wear. It's the choice I wish to preserve rather than sell you on my
new religion.

-paul

wheelist said:

If you read my post you'll see that I didn't specifically respond to
Richard. As you so eloquently point out, he qualifies all of statements
quite correctly and therefore leaves little room for criticism.

My response was aimed more at the whole anti-helmet brigade

So since you're suddenly all into qualification all of a sudden, who are
this "anti helmet" brigade?

Quoted message said:

you'll surely agree (actually you probably won't and will just be rude
again) that the whole gist of this thread is that helmets are stupid.
There's no arguing with the "anti-helmeters" and this theme is repeated
over and over in various threads.

You don't seem to have paid very close attention to them if you think
that. The point isn't that helmets are "stupid" but that there is not
clear cut evidence that they are a benefit if worn as a default.

Quoted message said:

The point I was getting at (or trying to) is that at some time there
will have been an incident where a helmet did save a person's life

And if that's of no use in predicting if you'll be better off with or
without one in any future incident (and it isn't), then it's not any use
as information here.

Quoted message said:

I find it difficult to see the incredible veracity of some of the
arguments (or the relevance of some) against their use.

They're arguments for scepticism rather than specifically *against*
them. The default assumption with many people is they are a Good Thing.
The evidence leans towards this not being the case.

Quoted message said:

For example, citing Holland as an example that it's safer not to wear a
helmet (as they have such low head-injury rates) just seems to me to be
rather spurious. Holland is obviously a very safe place to cycle
anyway. There's an entirely different attitude to cyclists there. To
take such evidence and suggest that there's no need for helmets in the
UK is daft.

You've missed the point, the point being that helmets are not necessary
for safe cycling, not that removing them makes you safe.

Quoted message said:

Suggesting that I haven't read the thread, or haven't understood the
arguments therewithin, and then name calling seems a little childish
and rather petulant.

Okay, so you've read the thread and calling you names probably won't
help, but it remains apparent that you haven't understood a lot of
what's been said.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

wheelist said:

If you read my post you'll see that I didn't specifically respond to
Richard. As you so eloquently point out, he qualifies all of statements
quite correctly and therefore leaves little room for criticism.

Years of practice. :-)

Quoted message said:

My response was aimed more at the whole anti-helmet brigade - and
you'll surely agree (actually you probably won't and will just be rude
again) that the whole gist of this thread is that helmets are stupid.
There's no arguing with the "anti-helmeters" and this theme is repeated
over and over in various threads.

On the contrary; everyone I've seen in urc (including myself) who may be
perceived as "anti-helmet" have studied all the evidence long and hard
before coming to their conclusions, which may be very roughly summarised
as 'helmets probably cost net lives'. They are all careful to include
the necessary caveats, and provide references to all the data,
including those that don't agree with their position. This is to be
contrasted sharply with the pro-helmet folk who repeatedly and knowingly
quote statistics that have been withdrawn by their authors, are very
selective in their sampling, and provide blanket statements with appeals
to emotion in support of their position.

Quoted message said:

The point I was getting at (or trying to) is that at some time there
will have been an incident where a helmet did save a person's life
(there will also have been incidents where the opposite was true).

Indeed. Playing Russian Roulette with five loaded chambers in a six
chamber revolver for a prize of $100,000 will undoubtedly have a few of
the players walking away with a lot of cash. Would you play?

Quoted message said:

Undoubtedly there's evidence both for and against their use and as such
I find it difficult to see the incredible veracity of some of the
arguments (or the relevance of some) against their use.

I would recommend you take a class or two in scientific method, then.

Quoted message said:

For example, citing Holland as an example that it's safer not to wear a
helmet (as they have such low head-injury rates) just seems to me to be
rather spurious. Holland is obviously a very safe place to cycle
anyway. There's an entirely different attitude to cyclists there. To
take such evidence and suggest that there's no need for helmets in the
UK is daft.

So, let's leave Holland out of it. Why do you think there /is/ a need
for helmets in the UK? Is cycling a particularly dangerous activity
compared to, say, walking? Do you think that a cyclist wearing a
helmet and involved in a typical cycle crash is likely to derive more
benefit from the helmet than a motor vehicle driver or passenger wearing
a cycle helmet who is involved in a typical motor vehicle crash? (ie, is
it more or less beneficial for motor vehicle occupants to wear helmets
as opposed to cyclists?)

Quoted message said:

Suggesting that I haven't read the thread, or haven't understood the
arguments therewithin, and then name calling seems a little childish
and rather petulant.

Demonstrate that you have understood the arguments by answering the
above questions, then.

R.

Tony Raven said:

Paul Cassel said:

Again, what is the downside here?

Well Rogers, in a study of 8 million US cyclists found that "The most
surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is
positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use"

Mok et al found that children who wore helmets and were involved in
cycling accidents had more damage to their bikes and reported they had
ridden faster than those who hadn't worn a helmet.

Robinson found the mandatory helmet laws which doubled helmet wearing in
Australia and New Zealand led to an increase in head injury rates for
cyclists.

Which country has the lowest cyclist head injury rate in the world? The
Netherlands. How many Dutch cyclists wear helmets - virtually none of
them.

So the downside is you are probably more likely to suffer a head injury
wearing a helmet. No one is sure whether its risk compensation by the
cyclists or the motorist or whether it the extra mass and size a helmet
adds to your head in an accident but the effect is clearly there.

I don't agree that this is a downside. What you are saying is something
I agree with - that people with safety equipment take greater chances.
That means if I wear a hat, I have a wider choice of behavior with the
same chance of injury.

Frex, if I ride as I do now but with a hat, I am safer or I can choose
to ride harder and be as safe due to the hat. In all cases, the choice
is mine which is why I said I am still anti mandatory hat laws. I'm also
against seat belt laws, crash laws for cars and many other items part of
daily life.

Now will you agree or disagree that had I been wearing a helmet and
crashed identically to the way I did, that I'd be better off than I am now?

-paul

Richard said:

Paul Cassel said:

What I don't understand is where you think I'm disadvantaged by
choosing now to wear a hat as compared to before when I didn't? What
is the downside of helmet use?

There is evidence that cycle helmets, particularly the ones with
elongated peaks and rear peaks, can cause sharp twisting of the head in
a crash. This can lead to serious brain damage.

There is evidence that cycle helmet wearers are more likely to be
seriously injured/killed than bareheaded cyclists.

There is evidence that increased helmet use leads to decreased cycling
numbers, as wearing a helmet sends the message that cycling is a
dangerous activity, which it isn't. Decreased cycling numbers leads to
increased cyclist death/injury rates for the cyclists that remain.

See www.cyclehelmets.org for the references to the above evidence.

These are the downsides.

The upside, as far as I can see, is that it protects you against some
minor head injuries (bruising, scrapes).

It doesn't seem to me that their benefits outweigh their disbenefits.

If you would please return to my OP, you'll see I questioned the
rotational force of what I called the 'visor' making me worse off. Folks
in this group disagreed.

I think your point about sending a message valid. Here I *was* operating
in a danger zone. I was not out for a social ride with my daughter. I
was in training and going as hard as I could during a sprint.

I came off of a hill down into a left turn, then a flat into another
left turn and then up a whoop de doo and then down a hill which ended at
a bridge itself a downward slope. The bridge terminated with a need to
make a 75 degree turn or hit a wall. I was full out and I usually am
about 25 mph at that point, but I have no way to see over the whoop.

This is clearly anti-social behavior as for all I know instead of the
wet on the bridge, I may have run into a troop of girl scouts. I feel ok
doing this at 0600h but not at 0800h.

Will I wear a hat whilst out on a sunny day riding at 6 mph with my
daughter or with my friend Karen who is recovering from severe cancer?
Probably not, but my training runs will surely be with hat.

In the end, I doubt we disagree.

-paul