On Aug 23, 1:10 pm, "John S." <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 5:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I know this will be hard for you to understand, but: I do wear a
> > helmet when I ride my motorcycle. The situations appear equivalent
> > only to people who don't understand the data - that is, people who
> > don't do numbers.
>
> > Are you such a person? If not, here's a project: Find the number of
> > bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists and motorcyclists who are being
> > cared for because of permanent brain damage. Report back.
>
> > Can't find that? Then try for the number of brain injury fatalities
> > per hour exposure for each of those groups.
>
> > Or try for the number of brain injury fatalities per year in the US
> > for each of those groups.
>
> > Why am I asking for such data? Because your phrase "when you sustain
> > permanent brain damage after your head strikes the pavement in a fall"
> > is superstitious nonsense. It's based on the idea that most (?) or
> > many(?) bicyclists will suffer such damage.
>
> That's a perfect example of carrying an argument to an absurd extreme
> and I'm sure you know it. If we based the decision to use safety
> equiment solely on whether most users would suffer injury in their
> absence we would have very few pieces of saffety equipment. The kind
> and severity of injury clearly is the deciding criteria in prescribing
> safety equipment. For example the number of children injured by
> burning clothing has always been quite small when compared to the
> total population of children. And yet when it occurs the
> conseqnences are tragic, sometimes life threatening and usually
> permanent. Consequently we require fire retardent clothing for smalll
> children.
You are absolutely wrong on several points.
First, safety gear are not prescribed based only on the potential
"kind and severity of injury," as you claim. For example, the
consequences of an airliner crash would include death, or
dismemberment, or mutilating burns, or (of course) debilitating brain
injury. But airline passengers are not even given helmets, let alone
parachutes!
Why? Because we _don't_ make these decisions based on the horrible
injuries we visualize; we decide based on a combination of the
_likelihood_ of injury, and the effectiveness of the safety measure,
in addition to the severity of any likely injury. Briefly, you can't
protect against everything (despite the modern fashion of attempting
to do so). If the injuries are too mild, too unlikely, or can't be
effectively protected, you should not waste money on protection.
> The number of motorized and nonmotorized cyclists who
> receive unprotected head injuries has always been small. But when
> they happen the consequences are usually tragic, sometimes fatal and
> usuallly have permanent consequences.
There's your other major mistake. When cyclists receive "unprotected
head injuries" they are certainly NOT "usually tragic." You've fallen
for the helmet promotion scam of equating "head injury" with "serious
brain injury." They are NOT the same.
For example: Read the original 1989 Thompson & Rivara paper, the
darling source of propaganda for helmeteers, the source of the "85%"
claim. Of the 235 "head injuries" they found, 111 were merely
scrapes, cuts and bruises of the forehead. They even state in a
footnote, ""Forehead injuries (abrasions and lacerations) are
classified by the AIS system as facial injuries; in the present work
they were classified as head injuries." Nothing like inflating
numbers to scare people!
Furthermore, of the 235, there were 102 scalp injuries. Those are
never debilitating, just messy. And a further 19 were mere scrapes
and cuts to the ears.
Got that? A cut ear was called a "head injury."
Of the actual brain injuries, 98 were either AIS 1 ("mild") or AIS 2
("moderate"). Of the total 235 "head" injuries, only 28 were rated
"serious" or above.
When "head injuries" happen to cyclists, they are usually AIS 0,
according to Thompson & Rivara - although the official AIS scale
doesn't even reach as low as zero. The people who invented the AIS
injury scale understand that there are many injuries too trivial to
worry about.
Too bad the helmet promoters don't admit that! And too bad that
helmet fans don't understand it!
Regarding the rest of your fearmongering:
> And please accept my advance condolences if a fall
> results in permanent paralysis of some body parts...
>
> When applied to the individual
> who has the right side of his body payalyzed after an unprotected a
> fall from a cycle the benefit/cost ratio you quoted likely approaches
> zero. Having fun with math yet????
Let me describe something that's happened a few times in these
discussions. We've had several posts from doctors, from
psychologists, and from others whose work consists of caring for
people with serious, permanent brain injury. In fact, one member of
our bicycle club was employed in such work. All of those people said
"If you could see what I see, you'd wear a helmet."
I asked each of those people - including our bike club member - how
many of your permanently brain injured clients got their injuries
while cycling?
They all either admitted the same thing, or simply refused to answer.
The answer from my fellow club member was typical: "Well, there was
only one. He was a bicycle racer." Note that as a bicycle racer, he
was probably wearing a helmet; they're required in all American races,
whether or not they do any good.
When I asked where the other clients come from, the answer was "Car
crashes, mostly. A few motorcycle crashes, and other stuff." She
could have added more detail. I've looked at national data, and it
turns out that falls around the home are the second most common
cause. There are also a fair number from near-drownings, it seems,
although I haven't yet located a number for that.
All of these people, when pressed, admitted that bicyclists just don't
make up any significant portion of their case load. My club friend
said she'd worked full time in the field for seven years and only
encountered that one cyclist.
Check the national data. Find a comprehensive list of sources of
serious brain injury. Cycling is usually not even on the list. In
fact, cyclists are literally less than 1% of the head injury
fatalities in America.
Basically, John, you've bought into the propaganda completely. You've
read websites that declare their objective is to mandate helmets for
all ages everywhere, and you've believed the out-of-context numbers
they throw up in order to scare you. But you've been duped. If you
want to prevent needless tragedy, work on the 99% of the head injury
problem that has nothing to do with bicycling!
Bicycling does NOT carry an unusual risk of head injury. Bicycling is
NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
Frank Krygowski