"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
CowPunk wrote:


This whole helmet discussion reminds of my pesticide
chemistry
class when my prof. would tell the class "but the LD50 is ...
blah, blah, blah.", but never took into account that while
maybe
it takes a lot of whatever chemical to kill you, no one
really
knows how much it takes to cause cancer, nerve damage,
brain damage, loss of eyesight, etc....

The discussion also reminds me of a class where everyone has a
strong
opinion, but nobody does the homework! ;-)


The same thing holds true for this discussion. You're
looking
at FATALITIES. What about the accidents where a helmet
prevented brain injury? It's not something that can be
answered
or tested easily....

In another post, I mentioned a scientific study and an informal
newpaper
article that both dealt with injuries, as opposed to
fatalities. The
study was published as: "Trends in Cycle Injury in New Zealand
under
Voluntary Helmet Use" by Scuffham & Langley, Accident Analysis
and
Prevention, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 1-9, 1997.

Briefly: New Zealand was getting ready to make it illegal for
anyone of
any age anywhere in the country to ride a bike without a
helmet. As a
run-up, they promoted the heck out of helmets. Helmet use
suddenly
surged in just a few years, from about 20% to over 80% for at
least some
age groups.

The authors figured this was a great opportunity to show the
benefit of
helmets. The checked medical records of cyclists admitted to
all the
major hospitals. They were looking for the corresponding drop
in the
percentage admitted due to head injury (as opposed to, say,
broken legs,
internal injuries, etc.)

They found no detectable difference at all. Zero. From the
medical
data, it was impossible to tell anyone had put on a helmet.

The New York Times did an article on the same issue: "A
Bicycling
Mystery: Head Injuries Piling Up."
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html


And the New York Times wrote on May 1, 2001 that:

"A report last summer on "The Future of Children" noted that 35
states lacked bicycle helmet laws, even though "research has
shown that bicycle helmets are 85 percent effective at reducing
head injuries." A study in Queensland, Australia, of bicycle
accidents among children showed that wearing a helmet reduced the
risk of loss of consciousness from a head injury by 86 percent.

Even preschoolers who do not ride in traffic and toddlers on
tricycles need head protection "whenever and wherever they are
cycling," insists Dr. Elizabeth C. Powell of Children's Memorial
Hospital in Chicago. Dr. Powell, a specialist in pediatric
emergency medicine, notes that helmets can also reduce the risk
of facial injuries when a child falls off a tricycle or bicycle."

I guess it all depends on whether you live in New Zeland or
Australia. Or whether you are Rivera or Scuffham. For every
scientific study you come up with, I can find one or two that go
the other way. And in the final analysis, it really does not
matter, because we all just do what we do -- and, with minor
exception, we are all too old for the MHLs in most states. MLHs
are mostly a kid thing, and my kid wears a helmet when he is
riding or skiing -- but not when he is walking, showering, or
playing with his Legos or YuGiOh cards. Yes, I know that is
inconsistent when we look at injury patterns, but we have learned
to live with that inconsistency. -- Jay Beattie.