On Thu, 07 Nov 2019 19:24:22 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/7/2019 5:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, November 7, 2019 at 5:04:16 PM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 11/7/2019 8:47 AM, sms wrote:
On 11/6/2019 3:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/6/2019 5:16 PM, Bertrand wrote:
But despite decades of gains in percentage of helmet use,
bicyclist concussions have risen, not fallen, over 60% in
fifteen years or so. That increase completely outstrips
any purported rise in riding levels.

Maybe the number of REPORTED concussions has gone up, but
that doesn't say much about the actual number of
concussions. In the U.S., at least, there's much more
awareness now of concussions, and they're diagnosed much
more frequently than in the past (we used to just say
someone "got his bell rung" or "got the wind knocked out of
him"). Look at how many more high school and pro athletes
are now diagnosed with concussions. So I don't think an
increase in reported bicycle concussions leads to any valid
conclusion about helmet effectiveness. You'd need, for a
start, to compare cycling to other sports.

+1

Correct. Taking one piece of data, totally out of context, is
unhelpful but unfortunately it's a common occurrence--sometimes done
intentionally, sometimes done due to ignorance.

The number of actual concussions overall could have gone down as
well, since with better protective equipment you don't see reports
of things that never happened. Counting ER visits is a particularly
poor way of judging the effect of ER visits.

Asking ER doctors and nurses about the comparative severity of
injuries of the patients they attend to, based on whether or not
they were using protective equipment, has at least some validity
though there's a large subset that they never see because the
protective equipment has made it unnecessary.

We have in our family a recently retired emergency room physician. He
practiced for many years in a state that imposed a mandatory helmet
law for kids. He says rather emphatically that the law made no
difference.

Unsurprisingly, medical professionals are big proponents of bicycle
helmets, and they probably aren't being paid by the helmet industry
for their views. They aren't out there saying dumb things to
discourage helmet use either, i.e. calling them "foam hats." Our
resident AHZs could learn something if they were willing to look at
the facts.

I believe I've posted more facts and data than anyone here on this issue.

But yes, it's true that there are medicos who have jumped on the MHL
bandwagon, to one degree or another. I've asked several, and every one
has admitted that bicyclists comprise a tiny, tiny percentage of the
TBI cases they've seen. None has ever given a cogent response as to
why so much nagging should be directed at bicyclists, when many other
activities cause so much more TBI.

And to be clear, I've known and still know doctors who are helmet skeptics.

Are they openly skeptical when talking to patients, during a consultation?

Oddly enough, I've never been in the examination room when a doctor has been
talking with a patient - except my kids and my wife.

But our doctors have all known we were cyclists. None ever mentioned helmets,
IIRC.


Protocols vary. I got up and walked out when asked 'are
there firearms in your home?'. Who died and made you King?

But, Oh My God! Firearms are so dangerous. Why, they will leap right
out of the corner and shoot somebody!
--
cheers,

John B.