Wife & Whether to Helmet or not to Helmet

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:56:59 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:

[snip]

>> For those who don't see the obvious: Anything that sells helmets
>> gets trumpeted, no matter how weak it is. Anything that questions
>> helmets gets muffled, no matter how thorough and rigorous it is.
>>
>> Now, would this possibly have anything to do with, say, a profit
>> motive?
>
>Not in peer reviewed journals nor in the general media. The helmet
>lobby doesn't control much of anything, being quite tiny and advertising
>little outside of the bike magazines. It has everything to do with
>media bias in general, which is that bicycling is a perilous activity.

Dear Tim,

Bah! Who do you think tells the New York Times what's fit to
print? You'll never make a good conspiracy theorist if you
underestimate the power of the Stonecutters:

Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We Do! We Do!

Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We Do! We Do!

Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We Do! We Do!

Who robs cavefish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We Do! We Do!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonecutters#.22We_Do.22_.28The_Stonecutters.27_Song.29

Number One

 

[Jay Beattie]

[email protected] wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > I am still waiting to see all the people with neck injuries -- and I've
> > been waiting since about 1975 when this argument was first made with
> > the Bell Biker. Modern microshell helmets are pretty slippery, and in
> > combination with their minimalist profiles, they may even reduce
> > rotational injury to the neck. Who knows. I am not aware of single
> > study using a modern helmet -- or any study -- that proves this point.
>
> Jay, have you looked for such a study or are you saying that you
> haven't found one in your Cheerios, and that no little red-haired girl
> has slipped on into your pocket?
>
> Took me about 60 seconds.
>
> http://www.helmets.org/hurtmemo.htm
> http://www.hprl.org/
>
> I admit, the pages cited above are not the studies itself/themselves,
> they only refer to them.

You wasted 60 seconds. The one link that takes me anywhere with
specific content is merely a report to the ASTM which talks about those
teardrop shaped aerohelmets rotating and exposing bare scalp -- or
coming off -- in a crash I do not see any mention of neck injury -- or
any mention of a study of any population to determine the distribution
of injury among helmet users and non-helmet users.

As for looking in my bowl of Cherios, I follow the literature for
professional reasons. Most everything cited here is old news. If
someone wants to give me a link to a real study where the neck injury
issue is addressed directly and not obliquely, I would be hapy to read
it. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

> But what about performance in actual crashes? Pointers to info on this?
> For my own use, ...
> <snip>
> So, when I am flying through the air moments after being hit by a car,
> moments from hitting the ground and/or other stationary objects, do I
> want a helmet or not? Please point me to info about this. I'm not
> worried about the likelyhood of crashing which I know is low.

Hi Joseph,

I suggest you get a dirtbike. A bit of experience riding a motorcycle
offroad will answer all your questions. My first dirtbike was a Hodaka
90 which Dad kindly bought me when I was 10. Since then my head has
hit the ground in the desert, the forest, the mountains, in Utah,
Colorado, Idaho, and all over western Nevada and northern and southern
California. Falling is part of the sport, like in skiing, and if you
are JRA, putting around, cowtrailing, sightseeing, or trail riding
just for fun, or practicing donuts or wheelies in your back yard, then
you still fall at least a couple time a day, at least if you're a klutz
like me -- and you basically don't get hurt in these low speed falls.
And you experience your head hit the groud lightly many times.

This experience precludes any and all helmet related questions. There
simply no unknowns. About anything whatsoever. Nada, None, Zip. You
will forever recognize anti-helmet tatements as either sheer ignorance
or trollz.

It will also likely be the most fun you have ever had outside of the
bedroom. WAY more fun than riding mtn (or road) bicycles and way more
safe.

Also, after riding dirtbikes you feel crazy just to ride a mountain
bike without padded long sleeves and padded long pants, plastic on
elbows and knees and shins, boots, and a full-face helmet. In fact, as
I've said here before, in '96 I left my bike helmet on a picnic bench
somewhere in the sawtooth mtns. So that day when mtn biking I just
used my moto helmet. Got crossed up over some tree roots and did a
face-plant, and have never looked back. The trails in the santa cruz
mountains tend to be up all the way to the top, then down all the way
home, so I just hang the moto helmet by the chinbar from the left grip
on the way up, when I'm crawling along at walking speed on dirt roads
with no rocks.

Offroad motorcycling will not only teach you beyond any doubt about the
usefulness of helmets, it will also make it obvious to you that bicycle
helmets are woefully inadequate. Falling from your mtn bike with a
full-face helmet on is a very eye-opening experience. You will be
aghast at the thought of using anything less after that.

dkl

 

[[email protected]]

Jay Beattie wrote:

> ... I follow the literature for
> professional reasons. Most everything cited here is old news. If
> someone wants to give me a link to a real study where the neck injury
> issue is addressed directly and not obliquely, I would be hapy to read
> it. -- Jay Beattie.

Hey now we're getting somewhere! But to what literature do you refer?

dkl

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > I'd say wear a helmet. If you are in an accident with a vehicle, the
> > helmet won't make much difference. You'll be dead or not by luck. But
> > most accidents I see are people crashing by themselves, on railroad
> > crossings, potholes, with other bikes, pedals breaking, etc. On these
> > low speed low impact accidents, the helmet works to keep your head from
> > being cracked open. So what could be a lengthy serious possibly
> > lifelong injury becomes a mild concussion that you recover from in a
> > week or so.
>
> That's a statement of faith, not of fact.
>
> The best data shows otherwise - that the helmet will make negligible
> difference.

No. Its a fact I have seen first hand several accidents where the
rider smacked his helmet clad head into the pavement. 10-15 mph.
Helmet was crushed. Head had a mild concussion. Riders were driven to
the hospital for a check, instead of an ambulance being called. Riders
were back riding a week or so later. With new helmets.

What facts do you think are not facts in the above statement?


>
> - Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Offroad motorcycling will not only teach you beyond any doubt about the
> usefulness of helmets, it will also make it obvious to you that bicycle
> helmets are woefully inadequate. Falling from your mtn bike with a
> full-face helmet on is a very eye-opening experience. You will be
> aghast at the thought of using anything less after that.
....
>You
> will forever recognize anti-helmet tatements as either sheer ignorance
> or trollz.

So, to summarize:

To demonstrate the value of bicycle helmets, you should do a completely
different activity, one that calls you to frequently crash.

That activity will prove to you that bike helmets are woefully
inadequate.

And anyone who doubts the value of a woefully inadequate helmet for an
activity where people _don't_ frequently crash is a troll.

Wonderful logic!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

>My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
>that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
>permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
>instructed that I should die.
>
>So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
>agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?

It's a crapshoot. No way to predict. It's like trying to make that decision
when you figure out you are about to crash and can't avoid it. In that
split second you can decide to ride off the cliff or run into a car. Which of
the choices will get you minimal damage or maximal damage? You can never tell.
---------------
Alex

 

[Jay Beattie]

[email protected] wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > ... I follow the literature for
> > professional reasons. Most everything cited here is old news. If
> > someone wants to give me a link to a real study where the neck injury
> > issue is addressed directly and not obliquely, I would be hapy to read
> > it. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Hey now we're getting somewhere! But to what literature do you refer?

Anything in a peer reviewed journal -- usually with a MedLine cite and
in English (no offense to Sandy or the multilinguals on this NG). If
it is just posted on one of those agenda driven websites (pro or con),
forget it. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[[email protected]]

On 28 Apr 2006 12:10:36 -0700, [email protected]
wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> > I'd say wear a helmet. If you are in an accident with a vehicle, the
>> > helmet won't make much difference. You'll be dead or not by luck. But
>> > most accidents I see are people crashing by themselves, on railroad
>> > crossings, potholes, with other bikes, pedals breaking, etc. On these
>> > low speed low impact accidents, the helmet works to keep your head from
>> > being cracked open. So what could be a lengthy serious possibly
>> > lifelong injury becomes a mild concussion that you recover from in a
>> > week or so.
>>
>> That's a statement of faith, not of fact.
>>
>> The best data shows otherwise - that the helmet will make negligible
>> difference.
>
>No. Its a fact I have seen first hand several accidents where the
>rider smacked his helmet clad head into the pavement. 10-15 mph.
>Helmet was crushed. Head had a mild concussion. Riders were driven to
>the hospital for a check, instead of an ambulance being called. Riders
>were back riding a week or so later. With new helmets.
>
>What facts do you think are not facts in the above statement?
>
>
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski

Dear Russell,

I doubt that Frank would argue that you have not seen
helmeted riders fall and survive with mild concussions.

But he may be wondering how many unhelmeted riders you have
seen suffer "lengthy serious possibly lifelong injuries" in
similar falls?

The invention of styrofoam helmets in the early 1980's was
not accompanied by any significant reduction in such serious
injuries.

To re-phrase things as nicely as possible, it is a matter of
fact that you have seen people with helmets crash and suffer
mild concussions. But it is a matter of faith or prediction
that a crash injury would have been significantly worse
without a helmet. Since nation-wide records fail to support
the prediction, "faith" is a reasonable description.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Jay Beattie wrote:
> >
> > > ... I follow the literature for
> > > professional reasons. Most everything cited here is old news. If
> > > someone wants to give me a link to a real study where the neck injury
> > > issue is addressed directly and not obliquely, I would be hapy to read
> > > it. -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> > Hey now we're getting somewhere! But to what literature do you refer?
>
> Anything in a peer reviewed journal -- usually with a MedLine cite and
> in English (no offense to Sandy or the multilinguals on this NG). If
> it is just posted on one of those agenda driven websites (pro or con),
> forget it. -- Jay Beattie.

I do not disagree; my point is that the statement "I am not aware of
...." is totally useless without context, in other words, where you have
looked. "Anything in a peer reviewed journal" does not help. Tell
us what journals you read regularly, and which you read sometimes, etc,
otherwise your statement is value-free.

Doug

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > I'd say wear a helmet. If you are in an accident with a vehicle, the
> > helmet won't make much difference. You'll be dead or not by luck. But
> > most accidents I see are people crashing by themselves, on railroad
> > crossings, potholes, with other bikes, pedals breaking, etc. On these
> > low speed low impact accidents, the helmet works to keep your head from
> > being cracked open. So what could be a lengthy serious possibly
> > lifelong injury becomes a mild concussion that you recover from in a
> > week or so.
>
> That's a statement of faith, not of fact.

It is both. The two are not mutually exclusive. What you meant was
that it is a statement of faith, not of knowlege. No reason you can't
make a leap of faith and arrive at a fact.

It would also be a leap of faith to say that the sun is going to rise
tomorrow. We cannot know that. And it doesn't matter. Whether or not
it is known to us or is a fact or not is totally completely irrelevant.
It is so likely that we may as well assume/pretend to know it for
sure.

I remember what it feels like to hit my head on the playground, among
other things. I have also crashed and hit my head while wearing a bike
helmet. I know a little about styrafoam from poking it with my
fingers. I, like Russell, don't need conclusive scientific evidence or
proof to have arrived at fact - and to know it - through reasoning.

Why I am responding to a troll, -that- I don't understand.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2006 12:10:36 -0700, [email protected]

> The invention of styrofoam helmets in the early 1980's was
> not accompanied by any significant reduction in such serious
> injuries.

Who cares? A trivial resuction would be worth obtaining, especially if
you are the individual to whom it happens or doesn't.

Remember, the likelihood of an event happening is only half the
equation. The price to be paid if it does is the other.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Offroad motorcycling will not only teach you beyond any doubt about the
> > usefulness of helmets, it will also make it obvious to you that bicycle
> > helmets are woefully inadequate. Falling from your mtn bike with a
> > full-face helmet on is a very eye-opening experience. You will be
> > aghast at the thought of using anything less after that.
> ...
> >You
> > will forever recognize anti-helmet tatements as either sheer ignorance
> > or trollz.
>
> So, to summarize:
>
> To demonstrate the value of bicycle helmets, you should do a completely
> different activity, one that calls you to frequently crash.

Actually it is a very similar activity. You are really scraping the
bottom of the barrel, troll!

> And anyone who doubts the value of a woefully inadequate helmet for an
> activity where people _don't_ frequently crash is a troll.

You left out sheer ignorance. Again, you are scrapin the bottom of the
barrell for arguments.

> Wonderful logic!

Thanks! Note that all the same statements could all be made about
automobile seat belts, too. Crashing a lot of cars with dummies in
them in a short amount of time will reveal lots about seatbelts, too.

dkl

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On 27 Apr 2006 00:47:33 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>I'll bet speed is an important factor. Cyclists in the US I'm guessing
>tend more to be fitness-types who are probably riding on average much
>faster than the average Dutch rider. In The Netherlands, you get all
>sorts of normal people and old ladies riding bikes around at 3 mph in
>addition to their fitness-types. Sure you can get seriously injured
>getting doored at 3mph, but crashing at 25mph is a much better way to
>ensure adequate injury!

Standard speed around here for the regular traffic is between 15 and 25
kph. At 3 mph people fall off their bikes because they're going too slow.

Jasper

 

[Espressopithecus (Java Man)]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> > I'm unaware of statistics that indicate
> > whether experienced cyclists are better or worse off wearing a helmet.
>
> It's my understading that professional racing fatalities are far more
> common since helmets became in vogue.
>

Are you extrapolating that to the ~99% of cycling miles logged by
experienced cyclists while not racing?

Rick

 

[Jay Beattie]

[email protected] wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > Jay Beattie wrote:
> > >
> > > > ... I follow the literature for
> > > > professional reasons. Most everything cited here is old news. If
> > > > someone wants to give me a link to a real study where the neck injury
> > > > issue is addressed directly and not obliquely, I would be hapy to read
> > > > it. -- Jay Beattie.
> > >
> > > Hey now we're getting somewhere! But to what literature do you refer?
> >
> > Anything in a peer reviewed journal -- usually with a MedLine cite and
> > in English (no offense to Sandy or the multilinguals on this NG). If
> > it is just posted on one of those agenda driven websites (pro or con),
> > forget it. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> I do not disagree; my point is that the statement "I am not aware of
> ..." is totally useless without context, in other words, where you have
> looked. "Anything in a peer reviewed journal" does not help. Tell
> us what journals you read regularly, and which you read sometimes, etc,
> otherwise your statement is value-free.

What ever comes up on MedLine or on a literature search through Oregon
Health and Sciences University. I don't follow or subscribe to any
particular journals. The last time I requested a comprehensive
literature search was at the end of last summer, so I am probably six
months out of date. Also, my informal source of helmet
information/opinion is a guy named Dr. Wilson "Toby" Hayes.
http://www.hayesassoc.com/biosketch.htm. He is the one who told me that
bicycle helmets do not increase rotational brain injuries but boxing
head gear does. He also was not excited about football helments, IIRC.
He has done a lot of cadaver testing to determine what kind of loading
causes neck injury. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Barnard Frederick]

[email protected] says...

> Which paper do you think got the publicity?
>
> For those who don't see the obvious: Anything that sells helmets gets
> trumpeted, no matter how weak it is. Anything that questions helmets
> gets muffled, no matter how thorough and rigorous it is.
>
> Now, would this possibly have anything to do with, say, a profit
> motive?
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Nah, it isn't money that's behind it. It is power and control. Nothing
gives some people a boner like telling somebody else what to do, and
best of all to call the cops on them if they aren't doing it.

 

[41]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> He is the one who told me that
> bicycle helmets do not increase rotational brain injuries

I would like to know how he arrived at that conclusion and where I can
find the published data.


> He has done a lot of cadaver testing to determine what kind of loading
> causes neck injury.

As there has been over the decades quite a lot of cadaver testing to
determine what kind of loading causes lumbar spine injury. It doesn't
work so well for a variety of reasons. One of them is that, so far at
least, cadavers don't have active musculature, whereas the support and
configuration induced by muscular activity is key to what happens to an
externally applied load in the living body.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:

[...]

> > The best data shows otherwise - that the helmet will make negligible
> > difference.
>
> No. Its a fact I have seen first hand several accidents where the
> rider smacked his helmet clad head into the pavement. 10-15 mph.
> Helmet was crushed. Head had a mild concussion. Riders were driven to
> the hospital for a check, instead of an ambulance being called. Riders
> were back riding a week or so later. With new helmets.

[...]

The groups you ride in, what fraction wear helmets? What
fraction of riders wearing helmets crash and strike their
heads? What fraction of riders not wearing helmets crash
and strike their heads?

--
Michael Press

 

[[email protected]]

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> > > I'm unaware of statistics that indicate
> > > whether experienced cyclists are better or worse off wearing a helmet.
> >
> > It's my understading that professional racing fatalities are far more
> > common since helmets became in vogue.
> >
>
> Are you extrapolating that to the ~99% of cycling miles logged by
> experienced cyclists while not racing?

Someone asked about "experienced cyclists." I was responding with what
I'd read about racing cyclists, as one subset of "experienced
cyclists."

But I'll admit that racing cyclists are subject to much different (and
doubtless greater) risks than ordinary riders. Similarly, NASCAR
drivers are subjected to much different (and greater) risks than
ordinary motorists.

But I think it's a bit disturbing that racing cycling fatalities seem
to have gone up since helmets became common.

Admittedly, this isn't ironclad. I saw (in a separate discussion
somewhere) where a poster had tablulated all known cyclist racing
deaths. The number of fatalities was always low, but it climbed
significantly since the 1980s. Other factors may be at work - but it's
just another thing that doesn't fit the standard model.

- Frank Krygowski