My helmet saved me, and broke

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:56:39 -0500, entropy wrote:

Ian Smith wrote:
[b]On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:05:22 -0500, Duffle wrote:

Have you posted a link to this study, rather than just talking
about it?
I'm curious to see it firsthand...

If you mean the cyclist v. pedestrian casualty rates, the easiest
place to read it is http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2018.pdf

If you want to see the same effect (or absence of it) in US
statistics you can do so at http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/kunich.html.
For Canadian, try http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/fatals.html. It doesn't
seem to be a specifically UK effect.

Ok, that's a bit better. Now I see where some of these numbers are
coming from.

I don't, however, think those studies are drawing proper conclusions
based upon the data presented. The statistics used are simply
broad-spectrum fatalities, and aren't looking at fatalities due to head
injury. This leaves a rather gaping hole.

I see. Your comment seems valid only if head injury is an
insignificant overall contributor to cyclist mortality.

In that case, there's no point wearing a helmet, regardless of whether
they work or not - it would be a bit like wearing (say)
shark-repellent while cycling. It might be incredibly effective shark
repellent, but it won't help while cycling (regardless of number of
wheels) except in quite extreme circumstances.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Irideonone wrote:

The facts were that steveyo fell off, hit his helmet (front right edge),
the helmets foam compressed & cracked, he didn't injure his head but he
did injure his thumb and knee. I think the conclusion that he derived
had he not been wearing a helmet is perfectly logical and very highly
probable. What would your conclusion be had he not been wearing a
helmet? Would he have had fewer injuries or more?

I don't know. No-one can ever know. That's the point.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith wrote:
*On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Irideonone wrote:

The facts were that steveyo fell off, hit his helmet (front right
edge),
the helmets foam compressed & cracked, he didn't injure his head
but he
did injure his thumb and knee. I think the conclusion that he
derived
had he not been wearing a helmet is perfectly logical and very
highly
probable. What would your conclusion be had he not been wearing a
helmet? Would he have had fewer injuries or more?

I don't know. No-one can ever know. That's the point.

*
Wrong, Mr. Smith. I can know. If I'd not been wearing my helmet, I'm
100% certain that my right forehead, right cheek bone, glasses, and nose
would have impacted against the road surface with the same force it took
to crush, and then crack the helmet.

This force was substantial judging by the rather sudden deceleration and
loud noise from the event which made my neighbor shout "Should I call
911?"

In instances of contact of flesh and bone with blacktop, the blacktop
always wins.

I would have had, therefore, *MORE* injuries without my helmet, because,
get this...*_MY_HEAD_WOULD_HAVE_HIT_THE_ROAD!*_


--
steveyo - Last will be first

steveyo

"I complained I need new shoes, until I met a man with no feet." -
unknown

"Do whatever steps you want if
you have cleared them with the pontiff"- Tom Lehrer


------------------------------------------------------------------------
steveyo's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/7228
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900

Ian Smith wrote:
I see. Your comment seems valid only if head injury is an
insignificant overall contributor to cyclist mortality.

In that case, there's no point wearing a helmet, regardless of
whether
they work or not - it would be a bit like wearing (say)
shark-repellent while cycling. It might be incredibly effective
shark
repellent, but it won't help while cycling (regardless of number of
wheels) except in quite extreme circumstances.


If it's significant, show it with data. If it's not, show it with data.
If the data doesn't exist, propose and conduct a study. Don't spout
your opinion to me through the use of silly metaphors based upon
groundless assumptions.

Until you can present solid evidence to back up your argument, I'll
remain unconvinced.


--
entropy - life in balance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
entropy's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/5816
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:22:45 -0500, entropy wrote:

Ian Smith wrote:
I see. Your comment seems valid only if head injury is an
insignificant overall contributor to cyclist mortality.

If it's significant, show it with data. If it's not, show it with data.

It doesn't matter to my case whether it is significant or not. It is
YOU that objected to it not being separated out. YOU are the one that
objected that the data which I did show did not separate out head
injury. You are the one that thinks this confounds the result.

IF it doesn't confound teh result, the data is valid.

IF it does confound teh result, then that implies that head injuries
are not a significant cause of cyclist fatalities, in which case
there's no point worrying about protecting the head.

Either way, the data presented shows exactly what I said it did -
increasing helmet use does not apparently correlate with reducing
cyclist head injury.

Until you can present solid evidence to back up your argument, I'll
remain unconvinced.

I just did.
Since you have chosen to ignore it, there is little more I can do.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith wrote:
* probable. What would your conclusion be had he not been wearing a
helmet? Would he have had fewer injuries or more?

I don't know. No-one can ever know. That's the point. *

Really?
Ian Smith wrote:
*Either way, the data presented shows exactly what I said it did -
increasing helmet use does not apparently correlate with reducing
cyclist head injury. *

It shows exactly what the writer wanted it to.
Ian Smith wrote:
*
Until you can present solid evidence to back up your argument,
I'll
remain unconvinced.

I just did.
*

No you didn't.


--
Irideonone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irideonone's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/10550
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900

Ian Smith wrote:
* The type of accidents unicyclists have will be very different
from the type of accidents bicyclists have.

No, they are not irrelevant to the discussion, because they were made
in direct response to an assertion that helmets, on the whole, must be
a good thing, that it is "obvious" that they will do more good than
harm. If that were the case, it would be equally obvious whenever
bicycle helmets are worn.*

Why, on earth, when they are not the same thing? Speed is different,
riding locations are often different, types of falls are different.
Please explain yourself.

Perhaps change the suggestion that helmets, on the whole, must be a good
thing (in the vast majority of impacts) *for unicyclists.* You can
believe otherwise, but you can't prove it.

The same is true for bicycles, BTW. Though there is compelling evidence
from many studies, it brings up many unanswered questions. The
"evidence" we have seen asserts that accident rates may increase with
compulsory helmet use (which we're not talking about here). It *does
not* assert that someone taking a fall like Steveyo did would be less
protected had he not been wearing a helmet. It doesn't at all. Why do
you seem to keep asserting otherwise?
*
So we can only look at one case: A unicyclist falls off and bangs
his
head. Is he better off with a helmet or without one? There are
many
circumstances in which he will be better off with a helmet, and
very few
circumstances in which he would be better off without one.

Again, you state as fact something that is (at best) your personal
guess (and one that many people disagree with). YOU GUESS there are
many circumstances in which he will be better, and you GUESS there are
very few circumstances in which he will be worse off. However, those
GUESSES seem to contradict the real-world observed performance of
helmets on bicyclists, so it is difficult to see a rational
justification for them.*

Let me see if I get this right. Are you saying there are many people who
would disagree with the idea that someone banging one's head on the
ground (as Steveyo did and not in some other fashion) would be better
off than someone with no helmet? Who?

Secondly, are you saying the real-world observed performance of helmets
on bicyclists indicated that riders *would not* be better off hitting
their heads on the ground (as Steveyo did and not in some other fashion)
with helmets on than without? I must have missed the studies that
indicated that.

Mostly what I keep getting is that compulsory helmet laws have generated
a possible increase in injury rates among bicyclists. Interesting, but
not related to this topic. Also that helmet use tends to make people
more accident prone or otherwise willing to take more risks. Also
irrelevant, as here we're talking about hitting one's head on the
ground, not whether or not it's likely to happen. Please respond to the
actual scenario of this thread.

When I recommend helmet use, it is similar to seatbelt use in that I am
not claiming they will reduce your incidence of accidents. I am assuming
you *will* have one someday. I am also assuming that Steveyo's helmet
did a good job.

Do you really think Steveyo's injuries would have been equal had he not
been wearing a helmet? Of course none of us can know for sure. But how
about if you gave us your estimation in terms of percentages?
*I'm not trying to convinvce you otherwise. There's no need to
convince anyone otherwise, the 'otherwise' is simply fact. Over the
period that the helmet wearing rate has risen dramatically, the
serious injury rate has risen slightly.*
I will accept that as a fact, within the areas covered by whatever
studies claim it. Now. Why did those injuries increase? I'm not going to
assume it was because people were wearing helmets, nor should you. It's
one possible answer, but to assume it's the only one is to be a pretty
lame scientist.


--
johnfoss - More Moab Fun

John Foss, the Uni-Cyclone
"jfoss" at "unicycling.com" -- www.unicycling.com

"Read the rules!" -- 'IUF Rulebook'
(http://www.unicycling.org/iuf/rulebook/) -- 'USA Rulebook'
(http://www.unicycling.org/usa/competition/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
johnfoss's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/832
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900

Ian Smith wrote:
Until you can present solid evidence to back up your argument,
I'll
remain unconvinced.
I just did.
Since you have chosen to ignore it, there is little more I can do.[/color]


I assert that you haven chosen to ignore the basic principles of valid
debate, and have drawn silly conclusions from incomplete data whilst
confusing fact with opinion. This leaves us at an impasse.

Still, I must congratulate your incorporation of shark repellent into a
fracas over helmets in a unicycling forum. For this feat, I hereby
award you one million points on "teh internets," redeemable for more
pointless email arguments around the world.


--
entropy - life in balance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
entropy's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/5816
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900

steveyo wrote:
*I would have had, therefore, MORE* injuries without my helmet,
because, get this...
*_MY_HEAD_WOULD_HAVE_HIT_THE_ROAD!*_

Meh.
Since you are so "sold" on helmets, perhaps if there were NO helmets,
you wouldn't have taken the risk of riding a unicycle and
YOUR HEAD WOULD HAVE NOT HIT THE ROAD!

Neither series events happened. But since we are fantasizing, I like my
version better.


--
ChangingLINKS.com - member

Wishing you Happiness, Joy and Laughter,
Drew Brown
'Changing LINKS' (http://www.ChangingLINKS.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ChangingLINKS.com's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/5468
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/42900

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:23:31 -0500, johnfoss wrote:

Ian Smith wrote:

No, they are not irrelevant to the discussion, because they were made
in direct response to an assertion that helmets, on the whole, must be
a good thing, that it is "obvious" that they will do more good than
harm. If that were the case, it would be equally obvious whenever
bicycle helmets are worn.*

Why, on earth, when they are not the same thing?
Please explain yourself.

Because to do otherwise implies that helmets specifically designed and
optimised for one particular activity actually work better for a
different activity. I consider this unlikley.

If it is "obvious" that a bicycle helmet will generally do more good
than harm when unicycling (an activity for which it is not designed),
then it would be expected that the bicycle helmet will have a
measurable and demonstrable benefit in the activity for which it has
been designed. Since that benefit is absent (and even, according to
some statistics, reversed), it is reasonable to conclude that helmets
do not, overall, have the effects that they might be expected to
demononstrate at first glance. If the consequences using the helmet
for the activity for which it is intended are not what might be
expetced, it is far from "obvious" that the consequences when using
them for an activity for which they are NOT intended will be what
might be predicted at first glance.

Does that explain?

Perhaps change the suggestion that helmets, on the whole, must be a good
thing (in the vast majority of impacts) *for unicyclists.* You can
believe otherwise, but you can't prove it.

But if I believe otherwise, then it is not accepted fact that they do
- it is a matter of opinion, with significant proportions of the
interested parties on each side of the opinion. Something that is the
subject of such debate cannot reasonably be described as "obvious" one
way.

compulsory helmet use (which we're not talking about here). It *does
not* assert that someone taking a fall like Steveyo did would be less
protected had he not been wearing a helmet. It doesn't at all. Why do
you seem to keep asserting otherwise?

Perhaps because people are assuming I'm saying things I'm not?

Let me see if I get this right. Are you saying there are many people who
would disagree with the idea that someone banging one's head on the
ground (as Steveyo did and not in some other fashion) would be better
off than someone with no helmet? Who?

No, I'm saying that there is now way of knowing in what proportion of
cases wearing a helmet will reduce the injuries arising from
unicycling. I'm surprised this is contentious.

Secondly, are you saying the real-world observed performance of helmets
on bicyclists indicated that riders *would not* be better off hitting
their heads on the ground (as Steveyo did and not in some other fashion)
with helmets on than without? I must have missed the studies that
indicated that.

No, I think you have me confused for a straw man.

Please respond to the actual scenario of this thread.

I have, repeatedly. It is not possible to know what might have
happened had something that did not happen actually happened.

Do you disagree with this statement?

Do you really think Steveyo's injuries would have been equal had he not
been wearing a helmet?

Not necesarily. He may not have fallen off at all. If he fell off,
he may have fallen less hard. If he fell as hard he may have hit is
head and suffered no greater significant discomfort.

While you might like to exclude some of these cases, it is
unreasonable to do so (in my opinion) and you can't exclude them all
anyway.

Of course none of us can know for sure.

Exactly. Which is all I have been saying. Thankyou for agreeing.

Why did those injuries increase?

I don't know, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. I DON'T KNOW. YOU DON'T KNOW.
NO-ONE KNOWS. That's why it is not reasonable to say it is "obvious"
that helmets must do more good than harm.

I'm not going to
assume it was because people were wearing helmets, nor should you. It's
one possible answer, but to assume it's the only one is to be a pretty
lame scientist.

Exactly, so it is NOT obvious that helmets must do more good than
harm. Which is what I've been saying.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|