View Single Post
  #18  
Old September 14th 15, 01:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
John B.[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,202
Default Thunked my helmet a fourth time

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:31:09 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sun, 13 Sep 2015 07:37:04
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 22:00:14 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sat, 12 Sep 2015 08:54:40
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 20:05:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:


A great deal deleted


I think you'll find (unless it's very different from the UK, which
seems unlikely given the common mechanism of injury) that it's 75%
that have a brain injury at the time of their death, which may well
have occurred anyway due to other injuries.
Not much point in keeping your head in one piece if you've bled out
anyway. And even a motorcycle helmet won't save your head if a heavy
truck drives over it, or even some much lighter vehicles. So the most
you can do is cite that 75% as an upper bound.


Nope. I was using the numbers posted on the site I referenced. Which
says, specifically, "About 75% of all bicyclists who die each year die
of head injuries". No if, and, or but, about it, that is what they
said.


But as I pointed out, if there's no reference to whatever other
injuries they suffered at the same time, it's utterly irrelevant.
Also, given the site is specifically concerning brain injury, they are
hardly impartial. Brain injury charities and trusts were the first to
drink the helmet koolaid.


I find that most statistics are faulty, in the sense that they do not
tell the whole story. Try, for example, to discover how many actually
ride a bicycle on a frequent enough basis to be called cyclists. One
set of statistics, from a bicycle advocacy group I believe, claimed to
count every person that had ridden a bicycle at least once in the
previous year, which is akin to counting everyone who got a bit tiddly
at the annual New Year's Party as an alcoholic.

The more detailed survey's usually start out counting the number of
cyclists who visit a clinic for medical treatment, which is, perhaps,
the only place to get an idea of how many injuries occur although not
providing an accurate picture of total injuries.

On the other hand "head injuries" are usually defined as "any injury
to the head" which may well totally ignore the fact that the injured
party has suffered a crushed pelvis a well as severe blood loss.

Another thing that doesn't seem to surface in the usual statistical
study is the fact that there was a reason for conducting the survey in
the first place and that generally surveys are conducted to "prove a
point" and frequently do not contain "all encompassing" data.

For example, I had a good friend who made a living conducting market
surveys to determine whether a new product or service was financially
viable. He said that nearly 100% of his surveys were conducted on
behalf of an individual, or department, that was advocating a new
project. And, surprisingly enough, most of his work proved the
viability of the project.

In the case at hand, if we cite 75% as the cause of death, which may
or may not be a viable number, but ignore the apparent fact reported
by the California Highway Patrol that in 60% of the auto-bicycle
collisions that the cyclist was at fault, while we may have identified
the immediate cause of death we have totally ignored the underlying
cause. And thus our study, while (perhaps) accurately reporting the
immediate cause of death actually presents a wholly erroneous picture
of the cause of bicycle deaths.

(And everyone knows that what you read on the Internet is always
correct!)

So... looking at Danger, Danger, wearing a helmet while motoring might
save as many, oh say 50,000 annually, and wearing a helmet while
bicycling might save as many as ~700 X .75 or ~525.

525 would be the maximum even theoretically possible, if helmets were
100% effective, and no other life threatening injuries occurred at the
same time.

When a team of pathologists and epidemiologists studied the UK cycling
deaths in detail, it was found that even if every TBI in the area
covered by the helmet was prevented by their use, 3 lives a year would
be saved. All the others would have died from other injuries anyway.

The lesson is, of course, that while it certainly should be mandatory
for cyclists to wear a helmet it is totally unnecessary for the
motorist.

Logic, of course, is very pervasive :-)

One of the major causes of TBI that I've seen cited is falls in the
shower. With slippery conditions and hard surfaces all around, it
really isn't all that surprising. Maybe we need better standards for
shower caps?

Enforcement might be tricky though - I can imagine that there would be
strong resistance to the shower police checking up on possible illicit
scofflaw showerists.


Obviously the easy way to ensure compliance with the law is simply to
outlaw "showers". After all, Queen Elizabeth ( Elizabeth I), was said
to bath once a month and what is good for royalty should be more than
sufficient for the masses.


I believe that she was said to have bathed "every year, whether she
needed to or not".
However, given the vast improvements in life expectancy brought about
by improved hygeine standards, and the huge pandemics that would
likely occur with modern travel if such a bathing regime were returned
to, it would almost certainly be counter-productive.


When I was growing up, in rural New England, during the winter months
one bath a week was considered by many as sufficient. I fact Saturday
night was the traditional time for the weekly bath.

--
cheers,

John B.

Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home