Wife & Whether to Helmet or not to Helmet

[Michael Press]

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

> On 28.04.06 19:40 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > The only person I've known to die in a bicycle accident was
> > the uncle of a friend, who broke his neck on a bicycle path
> > while wearing his helmet, probably by landing in just the
> > wrong way after his front metal fender broke and grabbed his
> > front tire.
>
> Not wanting to involve myself deeply in this discussion, I would just
> like to throw in a couple of examples from my own country, demonstrating
> that people do indeed die from bike accidents. And that the cause of
> death may definitely be head trauma.

I choose to disbelieve your disclaimer. You are now deeply
involved. `And that the cause of death may definitely be
head trauma.' Oh, _may_ be head trauma. It also may be
massive internal injuries such as a ruptured aorta.

[...]

--
Michael Press

 

[Jay Beattie]

[email protected] wrote:
> Størker Moe wrote:
> > On 28.04.06 19:40 [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Not wanting to involve myself deeply in this discussion, I would just
> > like to throw in a couple of examples from my own country, demonstrating
> > that people do indeed die from bike accidents. And that the cause of
> > death may definitely be head trauma.
>
> You don't state which country, but I'll note some points from America.
>
> In this country, there are indeed people who die from bike accidents.
> Roughly 700 per year, lately. Of these, helmet proponents are quick to
> say "65% [or some such proportion] involve head injury."
>
> Now that's always struck me as suspicious. If a cyclist dies with a
> crushed chest and a scratch on the forehead, does that "involve" head
> injury? I suspect it does. IOW, I suspect that a perfectly protected
> head will not save 65% of the fatalities.
>
> But still: are there not other sources of accidental head injury
> death? Of course!
>
> Do cyclists comprise a large proportion of head injury deaths?
> Absolutely not. In fact, by any standard method of accounting,
> cyclists are a negligible proportion of such deaths.

In great part because cyclists are a negligible part of the population,
even on sunny days. Not that I think there is bicycling-related head
injury epidemic, but the study should be of the bicycling population
and not the population at large, vis., if you bicycle, what is your
likelihood of serious head injury on a per miles travelled basis. But
you know that.

BTW, in Wisconsin, bicycling causes more injuries than hang-gliding,
parachuting, rock climbing and scuba diving -- ALL PUT TOGETHER. See
http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/11/2/91

In fact, in my age group in Wisconsin, bicycling is the MOST DANGEROUS
recreational activity there is -- more dangerous than hunting, boating,
swimming, riding an ATV, anything. ****. Remind me not to move to
Wisconsin.

> In America, odd as it seems, there is no definitive count of head
> injury deaths. But I did find one serious research paper that
> attempted to estimate the number. Briefly, the best estimate is
> something like 60,000 such deaths per year. (Some estimates double
> that.)
>
> It's very clear that cyclists are less than 1% of the head injury
> deaths in the US.
>
> Could helmets prevent the _other_ head injury deaths, the 99% that are
> not cyclists? Certainly, they could prevent _some_.
>
> Why are we focusing on 1%, and ignoring the 99%?
>
> Is it because we actually _intend_ to scare people away from riding
> bicycles?

Yes, and that explains the injury rate in Wisconsin. There is huge
conspiracy by the Trek Corporation to scare people out of riding
bicycles. It is a reverse psychology thing for our edgy, risk taking
Fear Factor generation. People will eat live beetle grubs and ride a
bicycle with no helmet just to show how tough they are. Sales will
soar. I finally have it all figured out. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 02 May 2006 14:32:21 +0200, Størker Moe
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 02.05.06 13:26 John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 May 2006 10:44:02 +0200, Størker Moe
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> So, Carl, now you know about three deaths in bicycle accidents.
>>
>> If I can pull out some pedestrian or car passenger accidents that
>> result in death from head trauma, will you urge people in cars or
>> walking to use helmets?
>
>*sigh*
>
>You didn't listen, did you?

No. I don't care.

>Now, read my lips: I DID NOT *URGE* ANYONE TO
> WEAR A H****T, AND I DID NOT URGE ANYONE *NOT* TO WEAR ONE.
>

That's what I wanted to read. You could simply have written "No." in
response to my question and it would have had the same meaning..

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 02 May 2006 07:24:52 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 May 2006 05:51:15 -0000, Richard B
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>I do _always_ wear a helmet.
>
>There is almost no need to wear a helmet in bed. It's really safe
>enough (unless you're sleeping in the street, I guess). I've never
>heard of anyone ever getting hit or falling hard enough to crack their
>skull while in bed.
>
>Or at least in a normal bed -- I'm assuming you're in a normal bed
>and not a loft bed or top of a bunk bed. I guess if you're in a loft
>bed or bunk bed a helmet makes sense.
>
>What kind of bed do you use?
>
>JT
>
>****************************
>Remove "remove" to reply
>Visit http://www.jt10000.com
>****************************

Dear John,

It's easy to forget the special case of hospital beds, whose
rails are supposed to be raised in order to stop patients
from rolling out sideways onto the floor.

The rails are rather more expensive, but much more effective
than helmets.

Lying defenseless in a hospital bed is, of course,
considerably more dangerous and accident-prone than
bicycling.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Do cyclists comprise a large proportion of head injury deaths?
> > Absolutely not. In fact, by any standard method of accounting,
> > cyclists are a negligible proportion of such deaths.
>
> In great part because cyclists are a negligible part of the population,
> even on sunny days. Not that I think there is bicycling-related head
> injury epidemic, but the study should be of the bicycling population
> and not the population at large, vis., if you bicycle, what is your
> likelihood of serious head injury on a per miles travelled basis. But
> you know that.

Actually, the most logical way to look at this would be to start by
comparing head injuries per hour activity. (It's perhaps sad to say,
but the point of most cycling is to enjoy an hour, not to travel a few
miles. And "per hour" allows comparison with a much wider range of
activities.)

Such "per hour" data's hard to find, but the source I found that quoted
such data put cycling's risk of HI per hour less than pedestrians (near
traffic, I assume) and about equal with car occupants.

However, there's more to the judgement. What you actually want is the
_net_ effect of cycling vs. other activities. IOW, cycling has serious
health benefits, whereas motoring has health detriments, both for the
person doing the motoring and for those around him. So even if cycling
and motoring were exactly equal in HI/hr, cycling should be looked on
as "winning" in terms of both individual health and public health.
Consequently, potential cyclists should not be scared away.

Similar comparisons could be made with other activities - like
basketball, for example. More ER visits per year than cycling, despite
far fewer hours activity, and almost none of the societal benefits of
transportational cycling.


> BTW, in Wisconsin, bicycling causes more injuries than hang-gliding,
> parachuting, rock climbing and scuba diving -- ALL PUT TOGETHER. See
> http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/11/2/91

IOW, both of Wisconsin's hang gliders, both of its rock climbers, it's
lone parachutist and it's lone scuba diver all had a good year! ;-)


> > It's very clear that cyclists are less than 1% of the head injury
> > deaths in the US.
> >
....
> > Why are we focusing on 1%, and ignoring the 99%?
> >
> > Is it because we actually _intend_ to scare people away from riding
> > bicycles?
>
> Yes, and that explains the injury rate in Wisconsin. There is huge
> conspiracy by the Trek Corporation to scare people out of riding
> bicycles. It is a reverse psychology thing for our edgy, risk taking
> Fear Factor generation.

Well, our "fear factor" generation has some weird inconsistencies. Did
you catch the Today Show this morning? Apparently, it's a wonderful
idea for kids to be riding BMX bikes on half-pipes, gyrating fifteen
feet up in the air...

But don't ever ride a bike without a helmet! Why, that would not be
safe!!! Because you can be head injured while cycling!!! [Um...
ignore that man behind the curtain, pointing out that cycling is only
1% of that particular problem, and quite normal on a per-hour basis.]

When people get constant warnings about head injuries, it _must_ deter
some people from cycling. Do you seriously think it doesn't?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On 2 May 2006 11:35:19 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>BTW, in Wisconsin, bicycling causes more injuries than hang-gliding,
>parachuting, rock climbing and scuba diving -- ALL PUT TOGETHER. See
>http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/11/2/91

[snip]

Dear Jay,

Is it possible that Wisconsin has far more bicyclists than
hang-gliders, parachutists, rock-climbers, and scuba-divers
all put together?

I see plenty of bicycles, for example, at WalMart, but
suspect that I would get pitying looks if I asked where the
parachutes were sold, what shoes were suitable for rock
climbing, how to find the hang-glider department, or what it
would cost to re-charge my scuba tank.

Am I underestimating the thrill-seeking citizens of the
Badger state?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Størker Moe]

On 02.05.06 17:44 [email protected] wrote:
> Størker Moe wrote:
>
>> Not wanting to involve myself deeply in this discussion, I would just
>> like to throw in a couple of examples from my own country, demonstrating
>> that people do indeed die from bike accidents. And that the cause of
>> death may definitely be head trauma.
>
> You don't state which country, but I'll note some points from America.

The links all end in ".no/something", meaning Norway. Except for the US,
most of the world use country-specific URLs. Kinda neat, IMO.

> In this country, there are indeed people who die from bike accidents.
> Roughly 700 per year, lately. Of these, helmet proponents are quick to
> say "65% [or some such proportion] involve head injury."
>
> Now that's always struck me as suspicious. If a cyclist dies with a
> crushed chest and a scratch on the forehead, does that "involve" head
> injury? I suspect it does. IOW, I suspect that a perfectly protected
> head will not save 65% of the fatalities.
>
> But still: are there not other sources of accidental head injury
> death? Of course!
>
> Do cyclists comprise a large proportion of head injury deaths?
> Absolutely not. In fact, by any standard method of accounting,
> cyclists are a negligible proportion of such deaths.
>
> In America, odd as it seems, there is no definitive count of head
> injury deaths. But I did find one serious research paper that
> attempted to estimate the number. Briefly, the best estimate is
> something like 60,000 such deaths per year. (Some estimates double
> that.)
>
> It's very clear that cyclists are less than 1% of the head injury
> deaths in the US.
>
> Could helmets prevent the _other_ head injury deaths, the 99% that are
> not cyclists? Certainly, they could prevent _some_.

Now you're getting closer to my reason for wearing or not wearing a
bucket: Not gross population statistics, because that's not really
relevant IMNSHO. But of the bicyclists admitted to the ER (or the
crematorium) with life-threatening injuries, how many of those were head
trauma? How many of those wore a h****t? How large is that fraction
compared to the entire bicycling population?

I have my opinion, I'll let you have yours.

--
Størker "There are three kinds of lies..." Moe
'97 GT Avalanche, '01 Trek Fuel 90, '96 Trek 850

Email Storker(DOT)Moe(AT)c2i(DOT)net
WWW http://home.c2i.net/storker_moe/

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 2 May 2006 11:35:19 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> BTW, in Wisconsin, bicycling causes more injuries than hang-gliding,
>> parachuting, rock climbing and scuba diving -- ALL PUT TOGETHER. See
>> http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/11/2/91
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Jay,
>
> Is it possible that Wisconsin has far more bicyclists than
> hang-gliders, parachutists, rock-climbers, and scuba-divers
> all put together?
>
> I see plenty of bicycles, for example, at WalMart, but
> suspect that I would get pitying looks if I asked where the
> parachutes were sold, what shoes were suitable for rock
> climbing, how to find the hang-glider department, or what it
> would cost to re-charge my scuba tank.
>
> Am I underestimating the thrill-seeking citizens of the
> Badger state?

Another point is that there are few child hang-gliders, parachutists,
rock-climbers, and scuba-divers compared to child cyclists. A young boy
trying a new bike ran into the back of a parked car recently. Few adults do
this.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[Jay Beattie]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 2 May 2006 11:35:19 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >BTW, in Wisconsin, bicycling causes more injuries than hang-gliding,
> >parachuting, rock climbing and scuba diving -- ALL PUT TOGETHER. See
> >http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/11/2/91
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Jay,
>
> Is it possible that Wisconsin has far more bicyclists than
> hang-gliders, parachutists, rock-climbers, and scuba-divers
> all put together?
>
> I see plenty of bicycles, for example, at WalMart, but
> suspect that I would get pitying looks if I asked where the
> parachutes were sold, what shoes were suitable for rock
> climbing, how to find the hang-glider department, or what it
> would cost to re-charge my scuba tank.

That was my point -- Frank made a comment that only 1% of all fatal
head injuries were bicycing related (at most). That number, however,
ignores that relatively few people ride bicycles, and that in
determining the risk, we should look at the injury rate for bicyclists,
or look at the statistic in some other way that corrects for the small
number of bicyclists -- like injuries per hour, as Frank suggested. I
don't pretend to be an epidemiologist or to fully understand
statistics, but just looking at one set of statistics (for Wisconsin),
a well-intentioned helmet activists could argue that bicycling is more
dangerous than any recreational activity in the state -- more dangerous
than ATV riding, snowmobiles, hiking, hunting, etc., etc. If you wear
a helmet while snowmobiling or riding an ATV, then you should wear one
bicycling because, at least in Wisconsin, it is more dangerous to ride
a bike. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:50:50 GMT, "H. Guy" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>YMMV, and i would never think of legislating your use of this
>device. nor would i wish to support you should this omission render
>you incapable of supporting yourself.

So how do you decide whether it was that omission that caused it? Are you
going to say that anyone doored or hit&run by a drunk driver who wasn't
wearing a helmet and ends up a vegetable should be cut off from emergency
services? 'Cause that's even more slimy than simply legislating the use.

Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On 28 Apr 2006 00:48:48 -0700, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:

>There are suprisingly many drunken bicycle drivers. They are drunk
>drivers who got their licences revoked, and who now have to make their
>way to and from the bars on bicycles.

I know I always ride the bike to the bars specifically to avoid getting my
license pulled. Not to mention to avoid hitting a 4 year old with a ton of
metal, but hey. Not that I go barhopping all that often, or even go to
parties, but when I do I'm usually on the bike. Given that you generally
go home when the streets are utterly deserted except for the occasional
cab driver, it's rarely if ever a problem, at least if you don't get so
drunk you can't ride straight.

Jasper

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On 28 Apr 2006 11:40:37 -0700, [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.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, suggests that ful-face motorcycle helmets are
not a good thing. But even you agree with the anti-helmet guys that bike
helmets are useless. So you're an anti-helmet guy.


Jasper

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 03 May 2006 20:30:07 GMT, Jasper Janssen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 28 Apr 2006 11:40:37 -0700, [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.
>
>Nobody, and I mean nobody, suggests that ful-face motorcycle helmets are
>not a good thing. But even you agree with the anti-helmet guys that bike
>helmets are useless. So you're an anti-helmet guy.
>
>
>Jasper

Dear Jasper,

Er . . .

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Motorcycle_Helmets?OpenDocument

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Michael Press]

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

> On 28 Apr 2006 11:40:37 -0700, [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.
>
> Nobody, and I mean nobody, suggests that ful-face motorcycle helmets are
> not a good thing. But even you agree with the anti-helmet guys that bike
> helmets are useless. So you're an anti-helmet guy.

There are no anti-helmet guys.

--
Michael Press

 

[[email protected]]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Nobody, and I mean nobody, suggests that ful-face motorcycle helmets are
> > not a good thing. But even you agree with the anti-helmet guys that bike
> > helmets are useless. So you're an anti-helmet guy.
>
> There are no anti-helmet guys.

You need to check the new definition! Anyone who does not wear a
helmet whenever they're within ten feet of a bicycle is now
"anti-helmet."

This includes people walking near bicycles, of course. You could trip
over a parked bicycle and be fatally head injured!

Why, if only _one_ life can be saved....!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Sorni]

Michael Press wrote:

> There are no anti-helmet guys.

Eunuchs?

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:

> Anyone who does not wear a
> helmet whenever they're within ten feet of a bicycle is now
> "anti-helmet."

Nah. Just those who spew thousands and thousands of words /each week/ on
the subject.

HTH, BS

 

[Richard B]

"peter" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1146550272.181395.185690
@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Richard B wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> >
>> > Richard B wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I always wear a helmet...
>> >
>> > I seriously doubt that.
>>
>> I do _always_ wear a helmet.
>
> Doesn't that make it hard to wash or cut your hair?
>
> Or did you perhaps mean to say that you only wear a helmet when doing a
> few specific activities? For those activities you've decided that the
> risk/benefit ratio is worthwhile whereas for other activities you've
> decided it's not. Even if data shows that for some of the latter
> activites, such as walking on city sidewalks, the risk of serious head
> injury is greater than for some of the former, such as riding a bicycle
> on a country lane.
>

It sure is tough to state a personal decision position and give the reason
why when a troll takes the statement out of context just to be contrary.

I'm done with this issue... Adios

Rich

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Jay Beattie <[email protected]>:
>That was my point -- Frank made a comment that only 1% of all fatal
>head injuries were bicycing related (at most). That number, however,
>ignores that relatively few people ride bicycles,

No, it doesn't. The argument is not about relative risk, but querying why
bicycling attracts so much attention. Many more head injuries happen to
motorists; even if the individual motorist is safer, many more lives would
be saved by motorist helmets. So why isn't there enormous agitation for
those?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Wednesday, May.

 

[[email protected]]

Richard B wrote:
> "peter" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1146550272.181395.185690
> @g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Richard B wrote:
> >>
> >> I do _always_ wear a helmet.
> >
> > Doesn't that make it hard to wash or cut your hair?
> >
> > Or did you perhaps mean to say that you only wear a helmet when doing a
> > few specific activities? For those activities you've decided that the
> > risk/benefit ratio is worthwhile whereas for other activities you've
> > decided it's not. Even if data shows that for some of the latter
> > activites, such as walking on city sidewalks, the risk of serious head
> > injury is greater than for some of the former, such as riding a bicycle
> > on a country lane.
> >
>
> It sure is tough to state a personal decision position and give the reason
> why when a troll takes the statement out of context just to be contrary.
>
> I'm done with this issue... Adios

Translation: Thinking about this is hurting your preconceptions. So,
no more thinking for you!

- Frank Krygowski